Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TEES VALLEY WATER BILL

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

PETITION (KENYA)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: I rise to present a Petition addressed to this House on behalf of 158,642 citizens of the Protectorate and Colony of Kenya. This Petition is in an unusual form. Many of the identifications attached are thumbprints rather than signatures, but in each case the names and addresses of the persons concerned are attached. In some cases these thumb-prints are in blood, to indicate, in the phrase of the petitioners, that, in their view, "land is life."
The Petition showeth:
That a grievous wrong is being suffered by the people of Kenya through the alienation of 16,700 square miles of their most fertile land,
and the consequent overcrowding of the native reserves, with disastrous effects upon the well-being of the people.
The Prayer is as follows:
Wherefore the Petitioners pray that
1. The Crown Lands Ordinance No. 27 of 1938 and the Native Lands Trust Ordinance of 1938 which authorised the alienation of African land and the restriction of African occupation to reserved areas be withdrawn;
2. Africans shall have rights to the occupation and ownership of land in any part of Kenya;
3. Africans shall immediately be allowed to occupy and farm the large unused areas which are in the territories reserved to Europeans;
4. Immigration of further settlers shall be stopped in view of the land hunger from which the African community suffers;
5. Conjointly with the withdrawal of the above Ordinances arrangements should be made in agreement with representatives of

the African people for the provision of agricultural credit, equipment, and training to permit the Africans to develop their land co-operatively.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Mr. Baldwin: On a point of order.

Hon. Members: There cannot be a point of order.

Mr. Baldwin: Have we no right of making any reply to the statements which have just been made, which are not in accord with the facts?

Mr. Speaker: Not at this stage.
Petition to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Baobab Tree (Paper-making)

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what research has taken place into the possibility of utilising for paper-making the bark of the baobab tree, which is indigenous in the African coastal areas and for which there seems little demand.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): Considerable research over a period of years has shown that it is technically possible to use the bark of the baobab tree for paper-making, but its commercial use has proved uneconomic.

Mr. Baldwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an opinion in Tanganyika that the tree can be used for the extraction of cellulose? Will my right hon. Friend make some inquiries to see whether it is possible to make use of what is now a very useless tree?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am quite willing to make further inquiries. My information is that the distribution of the tree is so scattered and such large quantities are required for these purposes that that project would not prove economical.

Mobile News Vans

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in what territories in Eastern and Central Africa mobile news vans operate; how far experience


shows that they serve a useful purpose; and what encouragement is to be given to their further use.

Mr. Lyttelton: Three mobile news vans are operating in Kenya, two in Uganda and two in Zanzibar. They are considered to be an effective means of disseminating information, particularly in areas not reached by broadcasting services, and the Kenya and Uganda Governments propose to use more.

Rice Development Schemes

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give details of those rice development schemes for which an additional £3 million has now been made available.

Mr. Lyttelton: This money is intended for preliminary investigations and pilot schemes which will provide the information on which large-scale development can be based. Colonial Governments have put forward several promising proposals, and three schemes have already been approved.

Mr. Braine: Having regard to the interest which my right hon. Friend's answer will arouse in the rice eating territories, can he say which are the three schemes already approved?

Mr. Lyttelton: The scheme in Tanganyika in the Rufigi Valley and the one in Zanzibar, these are already authorised, and one in Malaya of 180,000 acres in the Trans-Perak area.

Prefabricated Buildings

Mr. Beresford Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent prefabricated houses made in this country are being exported to the Colonies; and whether he will draw the attention of Colonial Governments to the excellence of the British product and the contribution it could make to the housing problem in the Colonies.

Mr. Lyttelton: Prefabricated buildings to the value of £618,000 were exported in 1952 to 24 Territories. I can assure my hon. Friend that Colonial Governments are aware of the potentialities of this type of building.

Judges (Termination of Appointments)

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the considerations which caused his Department, following the Japanese invasion of Malaya, to terminate the appointment of Mr. A. Terrell as a judge of the High Court in Malaya, although he had not reached his retiring age, while at the same time the other High Court judges in Malaya were either retained on full pay or given alternative judicial appointments in the Colonial Legal Service.

Mr. Lyttelton: After the Japanese had occupied Malaya Mr. Terrell's appointment was terminated because it was impossible for him to discharge the functions of his office. There was no other suitable employment in the Colonial Service which my predecessor could have offered him at the time. Mr. Terrell was over 60 at the time and his age was a factor which contributed to the difficulty of finding him other employment.
Two other judges who were absent from Malaya at the time of the occupation were on leave in East Africa. One served under the War Office for over two years and was then appointed as judge in Kenya at the request of the Kenya Government. The other was reemployed as judge in Uganda at the request of the Uganda Government. The remaining judges were interned. They did not receive full pay, but after release were given arrears of salary less 10 per cent.

Mr. Marlowe: Does not that mean in effect that all the judges were in the position that they could not discharge their offices, but only this one was singled out for exceptional treatment and his appointment brought to an end while the other two who happened to be in the same position were in fact ultimately given other judicial appointments which compensated them for their loss of office? Has not this unfortunate man been given unique treatment different from the rest?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am afraid that I have nothing to add to the factual statement which I have made.

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Mr. A. Terrell, a former High


Court Judge in Malaya, was appointed by an exchange of letters with the Colonial Office which created a contract that he should remain in office until the age of 62; that the Lord Chief Justice has ruled that such contracts are unenforceable against the Crown; and whether, nevertheless, he will advise Her Majesty to waive the privilege of the Crown and treat the contract as though made between ordinary subjects.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Lord Chief Justice held that there was no contract and he regarded the correspondence as merely telling Mr. Terrell of the age of compulsory retirement and of the pension at whatever age he retired that he might expect. The last part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Marlowe: That is an answer of casuistry. In effect the Lord Chief Justice did not find that there was a contract, because it was not necessary for him to do so. What he found was that any such contract, if made, was unenforceable. Therefore, it was not necessary for him to decide whether there was a contract. Is my right hon. Friend aware that these letters would amount to a contract between ordinary subjects, and is not it discreditable that a Government Department should enforce a privilege which is not open to ordinary subjects?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have in front of me the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice. He said:
… a judge holds office by Royal Appointment and not by contract.
He also said:
… I regard the correspondence merely as telling him of the age of compulsory retirement and of the pension at whatever age he retired that he might expect.
There is no need for hon. Members opposite to cheer, because all this was done under their administration.

Mr. T. Reid: Is not it a fact that this judge was not dismissed in any sense of the word?

Mr. Lyttelton: He certainly was not dismissed, but his appointment was terminated just before the retiring age because there was no longer any opportunity for him to exercise his functions.

Treatment of Africans (Mr. Nehru's Statement)

Mr. Beresford Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement in regard to the representations he has received from the Government of India concerning the treatment of Africans in British Colonies in Africa.

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. No such representations have been received by the United Kingdom Government.

Mr. Craddock: Will my right hon. Friend say whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made by the Prime Minister of India in a speech at Agra on 6th July in which he said:
It is a scandalous thing that the people of Africa are being treated as wild animals,
and—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] It is not true—will he take this opportunity of stating emphatically that such conditions do not obtain in territories in Africa under British rule?

Mr. Lyttelton: Her Majesty's Government categorically reject these misleading and ill-informed remarks about territories in Africa.

Survey of Blindness (Finance)

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has now been made with the survey of the incidence of onchocherchiasis in the Gold Coast, Cameroons and Nigeria entrusted to the British Empire Society for the Blind; whether sufficient finance is available to enable the full originally planned survey to be completed within three years; and what portion of the total cost will be borne from Government funds.

Mr. Lyttelton: The main survey began in the Gold Coast last November. It is hoped to extend it to Nigeria and the Cameroons early next year. The cost is being borne by the British Empire Society for the Blind, but the local Governments are providing medical facilities and accommodation. The Society inform me that although the scheme has proved a heavy drain on their finances, they hope to be able to complete the survey within the allotted time.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and I am sure that that announcement will give a good deal


of satisfaction, but, at the same time, is it not very deplorable that an important survey of this kind should depend on charitable subscriptions for its finance, and that, apparently, the Government are not paying a penny piece towards this very great service to the African people? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter and discuss it with the Treasury and see if full financial help can be given?

Mr. Lyttelton: If the British Empire Society for the Blind, in which, I think, the hon. Gentleman knows that I take a very keen interest, should be short of money for this purpose, then another situation will arise.

Travelling Scholars (Entry)

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) why British students awarded travelling scholarships are now subjected to political screening before being granted permission to enter the Colonies; and how many students have been excluded since December, 1951;
(2) whether he is aware that Mr. Ronald Frankenburg, a graduate of Cambridge and Manchester universities, who was awarded a Nuffield Foundation Grant to do research in the West Indies, was refused permission to land after being earlier given permission; and why Mr. Frankenburg was refused admission on grounds of security.

Mr. Lyttelton: Most Colonial Governments have statutory powers to control entry into their territories. It is for them to decide who may enter, in the light of their responsibilities for the welfare and good government of the peoples in their charge. I cannot say how many British students have been refused entry without inquiry with which I should be reluctant to trouble 35 Administrations. I regret that Mr. Frankenburg was erroneously told he had permission to work in St. Vincent. The decision to refuse him entry was taken by the Government of the Windward Islands, and I see no reason to intervene.

Mr. Griffiths: Surely, the Colonial Secretary is neglecting his duty when he says that he will not make inquiries concerning how many British students have been refused admission? May I refer

him to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday when he said that this is still a free country? Let him act up to this principle. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Frankenburg was told—and the right hon. Gentleman has repeated the reason —that he was refused admission because he was a bad security risk? What is meant by a "bad security risk"? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House consider that he is a very bad security risk, but we say why?

Mr. Lyttelton: My answer to the question put to me by the hon. Member —although he added some other gratuitous information of his own—is that I have to judge whether the strain put on this Administration in getting the statistics is justified or not. I will endeavour to meet the hon. Gentleman as far as I can without carrying these inquiries too far.

Mr. Griffiths: Is not Mr. Frankenburg entitled to know the charge being made against him? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this smear, without being specified and without giving this constituent of mine a chance to answer it, may possibly the man's whole career?

Mr. Lyttelton: No charge has been preferred against Mr. Frankenburg. His entry in certain cases has been refused.

Hon. Members: Why?

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE (COLLEGE TUTOR)

Mr. D. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the appointment of Mr. John Rex as organising tutor to the extra-mural department of Fourah Bay College, Sierra Leone, was cancelled.

Mr. Lyttelton: I regret that in following the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) on 18th June I inadvertently referred to this gentleman's appointment as having been cancelled. In point of fact Mr. Rex had not been selected for or offered any appointment on the staff of this college. The question of cancellation does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Healey: Can the Colonial Secretary assure the House that there was no intervention by Her Majesty's Government against Mr. Rex's appointment at


any stage? Can he also assure the House that Her Majesty's Government have no objection to Mr. Rex applying for any other similar appointment which may arise in the field of colonial education?

Mr. Lyttelton: These bodies are, of course, largely autonomous. So far as I know there is nothing to prevent Mr. Rex applying for any job anywhere else.

Mr. Healey: May I have an answer to the first part of my supplementary question?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have no information to the effect that any representations were made.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (EXPORTS)

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent exports from Malta are affected by the inability of other Commonwealth countries to introduce new tariff preferences.

Mr. Lyttelton: This is primarily a matter for the Maltese Government, from whom I have received no representations or information.

Mr. Russell: Is it not a fact that exports of Maltese beer to Australia and also exports of tobacco pipes are being handicapped because they cannot get preferences?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am quite willing to inquire, but I have received no representations.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA

Medical Officers

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many medical officers are on the Malayan establishment; how many of them are over 55 years of age; how far this number is sufficient to meet the present requirements; and how many vacancies there are at present.

Mr. Lyttelton: There are 344 medical officers on the establishment in the Federation or Singapore. Seven of them are over 55 years of age. In addition, 58 medical officers are employed on a month-to-month contract. There are 104 vacancies.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware of any medical men who have applied for these posts, or who have re-applied and been turned down, and if so why?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am not sure of the positions to which the hon. Gentleman refers. There are contract positions—

Mr. Awbery: Medical positions?

Mr. Lyttelton: They are under two heads. There are permanent medical officers and medical officers on contract. We are endeavouring to fill the vacancies as best we can.

Cocoa Growing

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what evidence he now has showing that cocoa can be successfully grown in parts of Malaya.

Mr. Lyttelton: Trials with both Amelonado and Trinitario cocoa are so far encouraging, but it would be unwise to conclude that a successful cocoa industry can be established until further results are available from the trials which are being conducted both on agricultural stations and estates.

Mr. Reid: Have these trees come to maturity? It generally takes about five years to develop a cocoa tree. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if any fruit has yet been produced?

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not know about maturity. My information is that the cocoa trees appear to be making reasonable growth and it is likely that they will yield well under certain conditions. I think this is promising, but I do not think we should conclude that it will necessarily be successful.

Rubber (Exports to China)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the ban on the export of rubber from Malaya to China is depressing the rubber market and adversely affecting the living conditions and wages of the rubber workers; that Ceylon is exporting large quantities of this commodity to China; that a trading delegation has just concluded an agreement with China; and if he will now remove this ban.

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. I do not think that the removal of the ban would have


a significant effect on the price. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to his Question on 24th June.

Mr. Awbery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Ceylon has made an agreement with China to export 50,000 tons of rubber each year for the next five years and that recently a British trade delegation has been in China making arrangements for the exportation of 30 million tons of goods? I wish to ask the Minister if the ban was placed upon the exportation of rubber by the Colonial Office or by the Malayan Government, or jointly by both?

Mr. Lyttelton: The embargo on exports of rubber to China was imposed by the Governments of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore at our request early in May, 1951, and before the United Nations Resolution of 18th May. The hon. Member will recognise that so long as our troops are fighting in Korea it would be most improper for us to permit a licence to export rubber to China.

Mr. Awbery: But is the Minister aware that we are concerned with the post-war and post-armistice period, when the people now exporting rubber to China will have an advantage over the Malayan market? We are keen to protect the Malayan market from exploitation of this character.

Mr. Wyatt: How does the Colonial Secretary expect the people of Malaya to believe in our sincerity when we talk about giving them self-government when here is an issue on which Europeans, Malays and Chinese are all agreed, that the ban should not continue, while the Colonial Secretary insists on maintaining it against the interests of Malaya?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member will have to take a rather simpler view of this matter. It is not possible to permit the export of strategic material by a member of the United Nations when there is an actual war going on.

Mr. Wyatt: But Malaya is not a member of the United Nations.

Registration of Businesses Ordinance

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the strong opposition of the Chinese community in Malaya to the Registration and Licensing of Businesses Ordinance, 1953, and of the general stoppage of business threatened by way of protest; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lyttelton: The matter is essentially one for the Government of the Federation of Malaya; it is at present the subject of petitions to the High Commissioner, and I cannot make any comment at this stage.

Mr. Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the threatened stoppage, due to begin on 31st July, will damage the trade of Malaya, and will he be willing to use his good offices if the present negotiations should fail?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think that is a hypothetical question, but I must look at it in the light of the circumstances when they arise.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this is an annual registration fee, how much revenue it is estimated it will bring in from each of the four major communities, and how much revenue comes in from Income Tax payments from each of the four communities?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think my hon. Friend had better put that Question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Regional Economic Committee

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what functions are performed by the Regional Economic Committee in the British West Indies.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Committee is a consultative body which advises the colonial Governments concerned on economic matters of regional significance. It provides a means for the exchange of economic information between them and it also advises on all matters relating to the British Caribbean Trade Commissioner Service in Canada and the United Kingdom.

Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, judging by the very authoritative report of Sir George Seel on development and welfare in the West Indies, this body seems to have achieved very little since its inception? Can my right hon. Friend say who are its members and by whom they are appointed?

Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot give that information without notice, but I think they have done some useful work.

British Films

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the statement on page 84 of the Report on Development and Welfare in the West Indies in 1952, regarding the difficulty experienced in the British Caribbean Territories in getting sufficient British films of suitable quality; and what steps he is taking to improve matters.

Mr. Lyttelton: The position described in the Report has already been discussed by my Department with the Board of Trade. I understand that, in the three Colonies where quota legislation is in force, the quotas are usually fully met. The general difficulty is that American films can usually be got more cheaply than British, and contain more of the violent action type which is said to be in greatest demand.

Mr. Braine: Has my right hon. Friend seen that passage in the Report which states:
… the episodes of sheer brutality that are portrayed on so many films in so many cinemas in the West Indies do make it legitimate to wonder whether the boards of censors, and those who appoint them, are sufficiently alive to their responsibilities,
and can my right hon. Friend discuss that matter with the West Indian Government?

St. Vincent (Arrested Politician)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the circumstances that led to the arrest of Mr. Theodore Joshua, M.L.C., leader of the Peoples' Political Party in St. Vincent; why he was charged with sedition and the charge then withdrawn; and whether an inquiry will be made into the allegations contained in the document sent to him by the hon. Member for Leyton.

Mr. Lyttelton: Mr. Joshua made a number of wild and alarmist speeches and was arrested on a charge of public mischief. Two charges of sedition were added. One was withdrawn after the jury had failed to agree; on the other, Mr. Joshua was acquitted. He was convicted of public mischief. I am satisfied by a full report from the Governor that the allegations mentioned in the last part of the Question are a fabrication, and I see no reason for further inquiry.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a charge of public mischief would refer to both sides of this House, including one of his own supporters not far from him now; and, under those circumstances, would he not make an inquiry to see whether, in fact, this kind of charge was justified, seeing that the looseness of the charge opens up very grave disquiet?

Mr. Lyttelton: I can only presume that, since he was convicted on that charge, the charge was justified. The only other thing I would say is that I hope the hon. Gentleman will not engage further in this form of self-flagellation.

Mr. Wigg: Before the right hon. Gentleman bases his case upon the decisions of the court, would he bear in mind that Jomo Kenyatta was convicted, but the Supreme Court in Kenya took another view of his conviction?

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Mau Mau Terrorists (Casualties)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will appoint a commission to investigate and report on the consequences of the Order made in Kenya permitting the Armed Forces, the police forces and civilian officials to shoot to kill in the case of those resisting arrest or attempting to escape.

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread disquiet in this matter? While recognising the discipline in the Armed Forces and, indeed, the heroism of lonely members of security forces, is he aware that both the Governor and the Commander-in-Chief have sounded warnings on this


question? Soldiers, policemen, lawyers and journalists have brought evidence on this matter, and should not the Government make the kind of inquiry now proposed?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. I am glad the hon. Member put down this Question, because I think he is under some misapprehension. There is no blanket authority to shoot to kill. The ordinary principles of English law apply in acting under this Regulation, namely, that only the amount of force may be used that is reasonably necessary in individual circumstances in order to effect an arrest. The hon. Member asked about the statements made both by the Governor and the Commander-in-Chief. I consider those statements are entirely proper. The Commander-in-Chief said, "I will not tolerate breaches of discipline leading to unfair treatment of anybody and all cases in which evidence can be produced will be investigated."

Mr. Wigg: Would the Minister agree that where allegations have been made about beatings and shootings of Africans the charges lie not against the Armed Forces of the Crown but against the Kenya police?

Mr. Lyttelton: Some allegations have been made against the Kenya native police as well as against Europeans. As the hon. Member knows, there have been some convictions already, speaking from memory I think it is five or six. When evidence is produced those concerned will be pursued with severity.

Mr. Hale: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what provisions there are for an inquiry when people are shot and killed in these circumstances? Will he say whether there is an inquest and, if so, by whom it is held, or whether there is an inquiry, and what evidence is called? What rights are given to members of the family to give evidence?

Mr. Lyttelton: Certainly it is open for an inquest to be held. Inquests are held.

Mr. Hastings: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what precautions he is taking to make sure that all people likely to be involved know the risks they are running if they make any attempt to avoid arrest?

Mr. Lyttelton: We do all we can in these matters. On the other point, I might

add in reply to the expression of dissent, that all cases of sudden death have to be notified to a magistrate under Section 385 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is up to him to hold an inquest in any case where he is not satisfied.

Mr. Edelman: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Mau Mau terrorists have been killed, how many wounded and how many captured since 1st April, 1953, or since the nearest convenient date for which statistics are available.

Mr. Lyttelton: From the beginning of the emergency to 6th July, 1,300 Africans were killed by the security forces, 514 are believed to have been wounded and 2,673 were taken prisoner. Between 27th March and 6th July, the corresponding figures are 1,062 killed and 349 believed wounded. Between 11th May and 11th July, 223 persons were taken prisoner.

Mr. Edelman: Is there not a remarkable and disquieting disproportion between the number killed and the number wounded? Is it not the case now that any African found in a forbidden area may be shot dead without further charge, and is it not carrying ruthlessness to an extreme?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member is entirely misinformed upon this matter. Nobody can be shot in any of these areas unless he is resisting arrest or attempting to escape from arrest—that is, in the prohibited areas. The ordinary processes of law, as I have already said, will apply in this case as in others.

Mr. J. Dugdale: Since the Question asks how many Mau Mau terrorists were killed, are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman considers that all those Africans who have been shot were actually terrorists? Does he state categorically that they were, or were many others shot who were not terrorists?

Mr. Lyttelton: That is another Question, but, by and large, my answer to that would be "Yes." It is impossible for anybody to tell when they are resisting arrest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to finish my sentence? It is impossible to tell whether a man is an ordinary criminal or a member of a terrorist gang.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not a very disquieting state of affairs when, in the course of what appears to be three and a half months, 1,300 alleged Mau Mau terrorists have been killed, which is actually twice the number of the fatal casualties which our troops have sustained in Korea since the beginning of the emergency?

Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Gentleman said three months. The figures I gave are from the beginning of the emergency to 6th July, which is a period of about 10 months.

Mr. S. Silverman: How does the right hon. Gentleman account for the fact that, for every one prisoner taken alive some four or five are shot, and would he say how, before arrest, it is possible to say whether the person proposed to be arrested is a terrorist, an ordinary criminal or a law-abiding citizen?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong; his arithmetic is wrong. I gave him the figure of 2,673 terrorists taken prisoner, and said that 1,300 were killed. How he makes that four killed to one wounded I do not know. On the other matter, those who resist arrest in these areas are naturally taken to be breaking the law.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Would the Secretary of State give us the figures for the latter period again, because we could not hear them?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have already given them. Since 7th March to 6th July, the corresponding figures are 1,063 killed and 232 taken prisoner.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Secretary of State has just given the point about which we are most anxious. It is the universal experience in all military operations that the number of wounded, and very often the number of prisoners, exceeds the number of fatal casualties. Here it is not so, and the disproportion has been increasing in recent months. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State to examine it very closely?

Mr. Lyttelton: The danger of these matters are well known to me and to the Kenya Government, and the reason for the increase in the figures of killed are that the number of armed gangs in operation and the numbers in each gang have greatly increased recently. We have

been conducting military operations to clean up these gangs.

Captain Waterhouse: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority in this House, in this country and in Africa realise that he is doing his best in extremely difficult conditions?

Mr. Edelman: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Paget: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what authority he has given to Mr. Davo Davidson to kill Her Majesty's subjects in Kenya;
(2) how many of Her Majesty's subjects in Kenya have been shot by Mr. Davo Davidson.

Mr. Lyttelton: Mr. Sidney Davidson is a Kenya Government officer seconded to the police force, and he has therefore the same authority as other members of the security forces. This includes authority to use force, extending to the voluntary causing of death, if this is necessary when persons fail to stop when challenged in protected and special areas. The only engagement in which Mr. Davidson is known to have shot any person was on 27th February this year, when with an inspector of police he killed three terrorists who were wanted for murder and who failed to stop when challenged.

Mr. Paget: Has the right hon. Gentleman had his attention drawn to the picture of Mr. Davidson which appeared in the "Daily Express," and to the caption underneath it:
It looks as if 'Davo' Davidson, the lone-star gunman of Kenya, has got his way. He has been pleading with military leaders to meet the Mau Mau terrorists with 'Wild West' methods as described by Fenimore Cooper in his novels about the war against the redskins.. Now his plan seems to be in operation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for that.

Mr. Paget: I was just ending my question. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to that, and whether the recent casualty figures do not show that an Indian war of extermination is, in fact, being carried out?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. and learned Gentleman must realise that my responsibilities towards him are to give him accurate information which I derive from official sources.

Mr. Stokes: Are we to gather from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the report published by the "Daily Express" is, as usual, completely inaccurate?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have given the official figures, and the accuracy of the report in the "Daily Express" can be got by comparing my figures with theirs.

Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Davidson is reported to have killed 33 terrorists, which are notched on his automatic rifle and ·45 revolver? Can he also throw any light on this report?

Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot go further than give the information which I derived from official sources, when I saw the Question on the Paper, to the effect that the only engagement in which Mr. Davidson is known to have shot any person was on 27th February when he killed three terrorists wanted for murder.

Mr. Wigg: In view of the unsatisfactory reply given by the Secretary of State, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment, and when I do so I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us—

Mr. Speaker: That is quite irrgular. I think notice has been given beforehand on this.

Mr. Wigg: Surely, Mr. Speaker, I am within the rules of the House when I tell the Secretary of State the point I wish to raise?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has given notice to raise it on the Adjournment, and he must defer further remarks till then. If he wants to write to the Secretary of State, I would not interfere with his right to do so.

Racial Co-operation

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will take the initiative in establishing an inter-racial commission, including representatives of India and Pakistan, to make

recommendations regarding the steps necessary in Kenya to establish conditions of racial co-operation and peace.

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. The House is aware that as soon as conditions permit it is intended to convene a conference of political leaders and representatives of all races in Kenya. This will include representatives of the Asian community resident in Kenya on whose behalf it is neither proper nor necessary that India or Pakistan should participate.

Mr. Brockway: As the Indian and Pakistani population in Kenya is three times as great as the European population, would not it be desirable that the co-operation of India and Pakistan should be secured in this matter?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. This matter raises very wide questions? The United Kingdom Government as such are not represented, nor would it be proper for India or Pakistan to take part in the discussions.

Committee on African Advancement

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has yet received proposals from the Committee on African Advancement which has been set up by the Governor of Kenya.

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals to date have been transmitted to him by the Governor of Kenya from the Committee on African Advancement.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) on 8th July.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the great importance of making clear the reforms which are proposed in Kenya, will the right hon. Gentleman at least ask that the Committee on African Advancement should expedite its proposals?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have already done that. I informed the Government of Kenya, and they readily agreed, that as soon as any scheme could be put into operation it should be announced. The hon. Member may expect to see one of these schemes in a very few days.

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is at least nine months since almost everyone in Kenya declared in favour of a subsidy on posho? Why should he delay this vital reform which would add so much to the living standards of the people? Why should he wait until the Committee has reported?

Mr. Lyttelton: In all these complicated matters we must await the results of the inquiries which are being conducted with all possible speed.

Terrorist Movement (Financial Help)

Mr. Beresford Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to prevent help, financial and other, reaching the Mau Mau terrorist movement from territories outside Kenya.

Mr. Lyttelton: There is no evidence of any assistance being given to the terrorists from outside sources. Every possible step is being taken to isolate Mau Mau gangs.

Mr. Craddock: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the fact that Mr. Peter Evans, who was recently deported from Kenya, stated in Bombay on 26th June that the Mau Mau terrorist movement had now reached an organised stage and that it required financial and other help from the people of the world sympathetic to its cause?

Mr. Speaker: Again I must point out to the House that the Minister cannot be held responsible for statements made by other people or that appear in the Press.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA (RACIAL DISCRIMINATION)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now advise the Government of Northern Rhodesia to abolish all separate entrances and separate counters for Europeans and Africans in post offices, in view of the opposition of Africans to this form of racial discrimination; and what arrangements for separate counters or entrances are in operation in the post office at Kitwe.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Government of Northern Rhodesia are already fully alive to this problem. There remain only seven out of 77 post offices and agencies with separate entrances and counters, and all are due for reconstruction. One of these is at Kitwe.

Mr. Rankin: That does not answer the question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman. I asked him if when that reconstruction comes about he will use his influence with the Government of Northern Rhodesia to see that this colour discrimination is stopped altogether.

Mr. Lyttelton: There is no need for me to intervene with the Government of Northern Rhodesia. If the hon. Member is under any misapprehension, may I say that I understand that when these seven remaining post offices are reconstructed there will be no separate entrances.

Mr. Gordon Walker: If there are only seven post offices awaiting reconstruction, which is very good news, would not it be wise to abolish the separate entries? One does not have to reconstruct the post offices to do that?

Mr. Lyttelton: Reconstruction will be necessary. It may interest hon. Members to know that when during recent troubles the post offices were thrown open to everybody, allowing people to use whichever entrance they liked, the Africans generally went in by the entrance which they always use in order to speak to people who knew their language.

Sir H. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Secretary of State for Scotland that discrimination in Scotland against the appointment of Welshmen to public posts should be terminated?

Mr. Rankin: There is no such discrimination. We even suffer the hon. Member.

Mr. Lyttelton: That is not my responsibility.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIAN CONSTITUTION (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in the discussions preliminary to the possible London Conference on the Nigerian Constitution; and


what are the present main difficulties in respect of this matter.

Mr. Lyttelton: The discussions have now ended in agreement, and I hope that the conference will begin before the end of this month.

Mr. Sorensen: While expressing appreciation at the news which has been given, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that means that these political leaders will come to this country, and can he say approximately when?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have only just got the news. I drafted a different answer to the hon. Gentleman, but I altered it this morning on news which I received last night. I cannot give him a definite date, but I express the hope that it will begin before the end of the month.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH TOGOLAND (CHIEF WORCKAM DANA)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why Chief Worckam Dana, of British Togoland, has to make two annual payments of £200 to the Dana Yiri in the Gold Coast and to the paramount Chief of Manuprusi in French Togoland; and why the chieftaincy in the Nacouri State in British Togoland has been superseded by chiefs of the Gold Coast Northern Territories.

Mr. Lyttelton: On the first part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 4th February. On the second part, the Nawuris traditionally owe allegiance to the Gonjas in the Northern Territories and have no State or chieftaincy of their own.

Mr. Sorensen: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a great deal of friction and confusion regarding the relationships of these various peoples of Togoland, both French and British? Could he not say whether an inquiry could be held with a view to consolidating these areas so that they may be more or less contiguous to each other? Finally, may I ask him whether any conference has taken place respecting the relationship of British Togoland to the Gold Coast?

Mr. Lyttelton: These are questions so tangled that I do not think the hon.

Gentleman should ask me to disentangle them in the course of Question and answer.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon Gentleman try to do so, and let me know the result?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Aircraft Workshops, Almondbank

Mr. Bence: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement on the practice of officials in the Royal Naval Aircraft Workshops. Almondbank, in using the services of employees at the workshops for the construction of a number of articles, for private use, a list of which has been sent to him.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby): I do not accept that there is or has been any such practice. As the hon. Member is fully aware, allegations of such a practice have already been the subject of exhaustive inquiries, and they have not been substantiated.

Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the alleged report that an official of the workshops was disqualified from a motor-cycle racing competition because his machine was not a standard machine, but had a frame which had been made of special aircraft alloys at the workshops?

Mr. Digby: I do not know. I should be glad to have details of that report.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is my hon. Friend aware that this place is in my constituency and well known to me, and that had there been a serious complaint I am quite sure it would have come to me?

Mr. Hobson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was admitted at the inquiry that work had been done and that the difference of opinion was only as to the size of the work done?

Mr. Digby: No case was made out against anyone, and we must assume that a person is innocent until he is proved guilty.

Mr. Pannell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that inquiries into this matter have been proceeding for the last two years and that at the inquiry in another place the full case was not denied, but was merely


difficult to prove owing to the passage of time? Can we have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that there will be no victimisation against those people in the factory who gave evidence on these malpractices.

Mr. Digby: Certainly there will be no victimisation. One of the reasons why the inquiry went on so long was because the alleged practices had gone on for two years before they were reported at all, and then they were not reported to the Superintendent of the Workshops.

Mr. Bence: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Exploration Ship "Discovery"

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the desire that the Polar exploration ship "Discovery" shall continue to be in good hands when relinquished by the Boy Scouts Association; and if he will give favourable consideration to the suggestion that this historic vessel shall be taken over and maintained by the Royal Navy.

Mr. Digby: I can confirm that the Boy Scouts Association have offered "Discovery" to the Admiralty and my right hon. Friend is considering the offer. My hon. and gallant Friend will understand that before reaching a decision we shall have to ascertain whether "Discovery" can be used economically for naval purposes.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread satisfaction if the future of this unique and historic vessel can be satisfactorily secured?

Brawdy Station (Pig Swill)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will give immediate instructions that as soon as there is any increase in the pig swill at the Royal Naval Air Station, Brawdy, a separate contract shall be made for the increased amount over and above the amount which is the subject of the present contract.

Mr. Digby: No, Sir. I regret I can give no such undertaking.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the increasing amount of their

Lordships' swill is a matter of considerable interest to the pigs in my constituency and, in view of the special circumstances relating to this case, if there is any increase in the future in the swill, would the Civil Lord see that special priority will be given to the original receivers?

Mr. Digby: I do not want to disappoint the hon. Gentleman but, far from increasing, the swill is likely to decrease.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL SITUATION (WASHINGTON TALKS)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the interim meeting of Foreign Ministers in Washington.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): The House will no doubt have welcomed the communiqués issued yesterday, which contain the conclusions of the Washington talks. My noble Friend the Acting-Foreign Secretary is now on his way back to report to the Cabinet, and I should prefer to postpone making any further comprehensive statement until the projected debate on foreign affairs.

Mr. Donnelly: Can the right hon. Gentleman amplify the last part of the communiqué regarding the proposed Four-Power talks on Germany? Can he give us any sort of idea of the basis on which we shall be considering a United Germany, and will he remember that the only possible basis on which agreement might be reached is that of a neutralised Germany?

Mr. Butler: These are very important matters which had better be set out in the course of the foreign affairs debate which will be held according to the statement which will be made on Government business tomorrow. If the House would be reasonable and wait for that, it would be more satisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA (TRUCE TALKS)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on the Korean truce talks.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The House will have seen the communiqué issued at the conclusion of the Three-Power talks in


Washington. The Foreign Ministers of the United Kingdom, the United States, and France reaffirmed their strong support of the efforts of the United Nations Command to conclude an early Armistice consistent with the United Nations' aims and the determination of their Governments to continue to work toward that end. The United Nations Command have now made it clear at Panmunjom that they can go forward and conclude an Armistice if the other side is willing. Meetings of the Armistice delegations have been continuing daily in closed session.

Mr. Donnelly: Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked on Monday about statements which had appeared in the Press that Mr. Synghman Rhee is supposed to have contradicted the arrangement which he made with Mr. Robertson, and that the Chancellor promised that he would make inquiries about that? Has he anything further to say?

Mr. Butler: I did make inquiries. I understand that it is confirmed that certain reports which appeared in the Press coming from authoritative South Korean circles that the Republic of Korea will abide by the Armistice terms which will be developed and signed at Panmunjom by the United Nations Command and the Communists are correct.

Mr. Wade: While I appreciate the practical difficulties, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that recent events in South Korea have shown the need for a truly international police force to deal with acts of aggression, and the dangers inherent in a policy of building up the military strength of one particular nation which happens to be the victim of aggression?

Mr. Butler: All these questions raise very broad matters of collective security, and the best answer to the hon. Gentleman is that the more collective and good the security is, the happier we shall be to complete it.

Mr. Attlee: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that in that statement there was no implication that we agreed to a blockade of China and that although at the present time we apply certain restrictions in accordance with the

decisions of the United Nations we have never agreed to a general blockade of China?

Mr. Butler: That raises rather broader questions which ought to be handled as a separate issue, but in general nobody would dissent from the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. S. Silverman: How far would this country regard itself as bound by any political agreement reached between Mr. Robertson and President Syngman Rhee?

Mr. Butler: All that we have is the account in the published communiqué arising out of the discussions between Mr. Robertson and Mr. Rhee. The important thing about that is that we should proceed towards an armistice, and when it comes to the negotiations there, it is important not only that we should be represented but that the point of view that we hold should be put.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements will be made for British representation at the Peace Conference, following the signing of an armistice in Korea.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The first step is to get an armistice signed. Thereafter the composition of the political conference will have to be decided by agreement between the two sides and the other nations concerned. Her Majesty's Government expect to be represented.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will not the composition of the political conference and its terms of reference be decided by the United Nations Assembly?

Mr. Butler: As far as a certain proportion of participants is concerned. The important thing in the answer to this Question is that Her Majesty's Government expect to be represented.

Sir H. Williams: As, according to the doctrine of the Foreign Office, we are not at war with anybody in Korea, either with North Korea or China, who will be at the peace conference?

Mr. Butler: The best answer to my hon. Friend is that we had better get an armistice signed first. Then we can enter into these abstractions.

Mr. Wyatt: What does the acting Prime Minister mean by "expect to be represented"? Is he not determined to be represented?

Mr. Butler: I mean it in the sense that England expects to do her duty.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Cannot the Chancellor tell us that, at this frightfully important meeting, the Government will be represented by a Minister?

Mr. Butler: We had better deal with that when the time comes. I agree that the representation must be of an important character, but whether it will be a Minister or not, I do not know.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN DEFENCE (GENERAL RIDGWAY'S STATEMENT)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister what action he proposes to take, in view of General Ridgway's official warning on handing over command of the Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers in Europe, against what he described as the now developing tendencies towards relaxation of our collective effort and towards the loss of military momentum within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The views of Her Majesty's Government are well expressed in the following quotation from the communiqué issued yesterday following the meeting of Foreign Ministers in Washington:
They [the Ministers] have emphasised their resolve to continue the common defence effort necessary to redress the present lack of balance of power and thus to contribute to collective security and to the maintenance of international peace. The Ministers reaffirmed that the North Atlantic alliance is fundamental to the foreign and defence policies of the three Governments.

Mr. Wyatt: Is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer ashamed to be even acting-Prime Minister of a Government which has to be censured by General Ridgway and General Gruenther on failure to take the necessary steps to maintain military momentum within this N.A.T.O. alliance? In particular, the failure is to take the initiative over the European Army, in respect of which the present Government made a number of pledges before they came into office.

Mr. Butler: So far as I am concerned, in whatever modest capacity I have to serve, I am not ashamed to serve this Government in any way. Secondly, these statements were made by General Ridgway himself. Thirdly, having attended the last N.A.T.O. Conference myself to represent the United Kingdom, I was immensely inspired by the combined resolution of the nations present to pursue their defence efforts to their maximum capacity.

Mr. Wyatt: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour Government did far more for the defence of Europe than has the Conservative Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]— and never had to be censured by the Commander of N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This must be a matter of opinion and debate for next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING

Contracts (Transfer)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what inquiries he made before consenting to the transfer of all current Admiralty contracts from John Brown and Company Limited to John Brown and Company (Clydebank) Limited.

Mr. Digby: The customary inquiries were made in order to ensure that the new company was in a position to complete the contracts in accordance with the obligations and conditions set out in them. The inquiries proved satisfactory.

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, but will the Civil Lord say whether his attention has been directed to what the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said in the House last Wednesday? Could the Civil Lord allay the suspicions that have arisen by giving an assurance that this re-organisation was not entered into merely as one of those devices for avoiding tax which was so scathingly denounced by the Economic Secretary last week?

Mr. Digby: I have no reason to believe that this is the case. My attention has been drawn to what the Economic Secretary of the Treasury said.

Mr. Fletcher: Can the Civil Lord give us an assurance that that was not the only reason for this re-organisation?

Mr. Digby: I am not responsible for that aspect of the matter. The Question relates to Admiralty contracts, and we are satisfied that they can be fulfilled by the company.

New Tonnage (Cancelled Orders)

Mr. F. Willey: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many orders for new tonnage to be built in North-East Coast shipyards have been cancelled this year; what were the dates of the cancellations and the yards affected; and what was the total value of the orders so cancelled.

Mr. Digby: Orders for three new vessels to be built in the North-East Coast shipyards have been cancelled this year, the total tonnage being approximately 12,000 gross tons. Two of these vessels were to be built by Messrs. Cleland Limited, Wallsend, and these were cancelled on 5th May, 1953. The other was to be built by Messrs. Swan Hunter & Wigham Richardson of Wallsend, and this order was cancelled on 4th June. I estimate the total value of these ships at approximately £900,000.

Mr. Willey: Does the Civil Lord realise that the reply he has just given, and the reply he is about to give to the next Question, will be very disturbing to shipbuilders in the North-East, and that we expect him to take a more direct interest in our affairs?

Mr. Digby: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I take a direct interest in the affairs of the shipbuilding industry, but I cannot agree that the cancellation of these orders for one large ship and two small ones is anything very alarming, in the light of the total order book, although we should prefer that there should be no cancellations.

Mr. Hobson: Were these ships for a foreign owner?

Mr. Digby: In point of fact the larger ship was for a foreign owner.

ISMAILIA (SITUATION)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. WYATT: TO ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the disappearance of Leading Aircraftman Rigden from Ismailia.

At the end of Questions—

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to answer Question No. 77.
After my statement in the House on 12th May the number of incidents in the Canal Zone diminished, except for pilfering, but last week there was a recrudescence of Egyptian actions against British soldiers. The disappearance of Rigden on the night of 9th July under circumstances which appeared to implicate the Egyptian authorities was one of these. On the night of 11th July a British soldier was shot in Ismailia and subsequently died of his wounds. Another British soldier was shot in Moascar on the night of 12th July.
On 13th July, and after the two further incidents referred to, the Sub-Governor of Ismailia was informed that certain measures would be taken. All that has been done is to set up six check points to check traffic into and out of Ismailia with the object of maintaining law and order in an area where the lives of British soldiers were becoming insecure. Her Majesty's Government do not consider that our military authorities could reasonably have been expected to do less.
By their preliminary requests to the Sub-Governor of Ismailia they gave the Egyptian authorities every chance to cooperate in the first place; it was not the British authorities but the Egyptian Minister of National Guidance who gave publicity to the preliminary warning from General Festing. Her Majesty's Government regard the Egyptian Minister's broadcast as unnecessarily inflammatory. The measures taken were in fact reasonable.
The position as regard the resumption of negotiations is still as stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 11th May, when he said that:
If, at any time, the Egyptians wish to renew the discussions, we are willing, ….


He went on to say:
Our hope is that negotiations will be resumed. In the meanwhile, we may await the development of events with the composure which follows from the combination of patience with strength."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 892–3.]
That remains our policy.

Mr. Wyatt: Whilst appreciating that the British commander must take all steps necessary to protect his troops, may I ask whether it is not unfortunate that he did not communicate his intention to the Foreign Office beforehand, in view of the very delicate situation existing? Will the Government see to it that in future, before similar action is taken, the Foreign Office are informed and consulted? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because much wider considerations than purely military ones are involved. Would it not be as well if some political adviser were appointed to the staff of the British commander who might advise him before taking action of this kind which might precipitate something quite unnecessary and unintended?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that a commander must be given certain discretion to safeguard the lives of the troops under his command. It is the Government's view that the steps that were taken in this case were entirely reasonable. In answer to the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, the commander has a political adviser.

Mr. Shinwell: Whilst appreciating that General Festing, who is in command of the military in this area, must use his discretion in certain circumstances, may I ask whether he consulted the Ambassador, or whoever was in charge of the Embassy, about this matter, in view of the very delicate situation there and the political excitement that exists? May I ask also whether there is any evidence that the Egyptian authorities were responsible for this abduction or knew anything about it? Would it not have been wiser to have entered into discussions with the Governor of Ismailia in an attempt to settle this matter in a conciliatory fashion, instead of indulging in what is obviously an inflammatory action that is likely to cause further exacerbation?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept for one moment that this was an inflammatory action. To set up check points simply to check vehicles and railway trains going

in and out of Ismailia seems to me an elementary precaution in these circumstances. So far as the question of discussion with diplomatic representatives is concerned, the General was in close touch throughout with Her Majesty's representative in the Middle East Office. With regard to the implication of the Egyptian authorities, Aircraftman Rigden was seen last in the company of an Egyptian officer and also in the company of a notorious character who is believed to work for the Egyptian Army intelligence and is known to have taken part in similar action previously of an anti-British character.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not that surely very flimsy evidence on which to found an accusation against the Egyptian authorities of abducting this man? Moreover, the Minister has told the House that General Festing was in touch with whoever was in charge in the Middle East, but were the Foreign Office informed of what was going on before this ultimatum was delivered?

Mr. Lloyd: It was certainly not an ultimatum and it is quite false to describe it as such. All that was said was that if this man was not returned by a certain time certain measures would have to be taken which would be inconvenient to the civil population, and that is what has happened, because it is inconvenient to the civil population to put up these check points. But it certainly was not an ultimatum.

Mr. Shinwell: What is the position now? Has there been any evidence of conciliation? Has the excitement died down and is there any likelihood of this action being modified in any way?

Mr. Lloyd: So far as we can gather at the moment, the action taken is having a very beneficial effect upon the security of British troops there.

Mr. Assheton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that all hon. Members on this side of the House, and I suspect a good many on the other side, entirely support him and the General commanding?

Mr. Bellenger: As the purpose of any action taken at this moment in this connection is presumably to recover a British Service man, does the Minister


not think that something different from the action taken by the British military commander is necessary, because it is obvious that already his intelligence service has failed to achieve what one would have expected, namely, the recovery quickly of this Service man?

Mr. Lloyd: Further action has been taken in the shape of representations through the normal diplomatic channels and that will certainly be pursued, not with any desire further to exacerbate the situation, but to see whether the man will be recovered. It is also quite untrue to say that these measures which are in force are solely related to Rigden, because since he disappeared one man has been killed and another wounded.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask whether the Egyptian officer with whom Aircraftsman Rigden was last seen has made any statement or whether any effort has been made to get him to say what happened?

Mr. Lloyd: Unfortunately he has not been identified.

Mr. Renton: In order that these incidents can be seen in their true perspective, would my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that during the past many years there have been, unfortunately, many similar incidents and that local commanders have always had to take action to protect their troops and have done so without reference to the Foreign Office?

Mr. Lloyd: That is so.

Mr. Wyatt: Does the Minister not understand that the general feeling is not one of complaint against what General Festing has done, but that he did not consult the Foreign Office first? The Foreign Office appear to be unable to control this sort of situation, and in this delicate situation can the Minister not say that in future action of this kind will not be taken without reference to the Foreign Office?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly can make no statement of that nature at all. All that I said—and the tone of my statement is designed to show—is that nothing should be done which is likely further to inflame the situation.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not clear that the best way of avoiding these very

dangerous incidents in future is to have new negotiations to get a settlement? We all welcome and recognise the Government's readiness to negotiate. Will the Government consider whether they can do something more to re-commence the talks after the lamentable interval which there has been?

Mr. Lloyd: That is, of course, a question which is always present in our minds, but we did not break off the negotiations. It was the Egyptian President who said that he washed his hands of them, and we have said very recently, and again today, that if at any time the Egyptians wish to renew them, we are willing.

Captain Waterhouse: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that murder and kidnapping will not encourage him to re-enter negotiations with anybody?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly.

JOMO KENYATTA (KENYA SUPREME COURT'S DECISION)

Mr. Benn: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask your guidance on a situation which has arisen as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court of Kenya to set aside the trial of Jomo Kenyatta. My reason for raising it is that, as a result of this decision, one of two things will happen. Either the trial of Kenyatta will be begun again on the lower level in Kenya, or, if the Government choose to appeal, it will be heard in the Privy Council in this country. In either case there remains on the record of this House the statement by the Secretary of State for the Colonies that
it had been found in the course of the Kenyatta trial that K.A.U."—
that is, the Kenya African Union—
was being used as a cover for the organisation of Mau Mau."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1953; Vol. 516, c. 456.]
This matter was raised at the time by various hon. Members, and you gave the Ruling, Sir, that it would be wiser if the Colonial Secretary began again at a later part of his statement.
I submit that the situation has now totally altered as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court of Kenya. My reason for saying this is that no trial of Jomo Kenyatta ever took place at all if the decision of the Kenya Supreme


Court is held to be valid, and that if an attempt is made to re-try him in Kenya the magistrate is bound to have regard to his superior officer, who is the Colonial Secretary. Indeed, I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, of a Question which was answered this afternoon relating to Mr. Terrell, who is a justice in Malaya, which points significantly to the fact that colonial judges are under the control of the Colonial Secretary.
The second point is that if the Government do decide to appeal against this decision of the Supreme Court, the matter will go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of which the Lord Chancellor, who is a Cabinet colleague of the right hon. Gentleman, will or may be a member.
I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, as this was one of the most hotly contested issues in the original trial, you will rule, first of all, that it was an improper thing for the Colonial Secretary to have said, and secondly that it is not to be referred to again, nor indeed to be quoted or used by the Secretary of State in further statements on the Kenya situation.

Sir H. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it proper to impugn the head of the Judiciary in this country?

Mr. Speaker: I was about to deal with that. The hon. Member should not cast any reflections, however oblique, upon the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Benn: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to you for allowing me to explain that I intended no imputation, nor indeed, I venture to suggest, did I make any imputation. I simply stated as a matter of fact that if the Government appeal they can appeal only to a body in this country which contains the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Speaker: All I would say is that the hon. Member really should not suggest about the Lord Chancellor that because he is a member of the same Government or Cabinet, therefore his judicial capacity would be affected by that. Surely everyone in the House knows that is not the case.
In reply to the hon. Member's point, it is difficult for me to know how I can help him. I am certainly going to make no retrospective Ruling. All I can say is

that I understand the position in Kenya to be this—I hope the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong—that the decision of the Kenya Court was to order a new trial of this man. I believe that is the position. Am I right?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have no information other than that which appeared on the tape, which is that the High Court ruled that the magistrate had no jurisdiction, and ordered a re-trial. That is all I have seen.

Mr. Speaker: The point is that if there is to be a new trial the matter is still sub judice. If that is the case, there is nothing that we can do about it now.

Mr. Bing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I did submit to you the possibility of asking the Secretary of State a Private Notice Question in order that he might make a statement to the House on this matter. With great respect, it is surely impossible for the Kenya Supreme Court to order a new trial. All it can say is that no trial has taken place, and therefore, if the Government so desire, they can in fact prosecute again. All that has been said is that this magistrate was completely incapable and incompetent of holding this trial and the whole proceedings were an entire nullity.
If I may address this as a point of order to you, Mr. Speaker, the question which I wished to address to the Secretary of State was cast in the most broad terms because I hoped that he would make some statement with reference, for example, to the costs which have been thrown away by the defendant in being compelled to appear before a magistrate who had no authority whatever to hear the matter, and with reference to who had the responsibility of persuading these various persons to appear before somebody who was not entitled in any circumstances to hear the matter at all.

Mr. Speaker: I am not clear what has happened in Kenya. It has only come out this morning, I understand. I would certainly defer any decision on a matter of this sort until I have the actual facts of what has happened and the legal position in Kenya. I think that in the absence of precise knowledge it would be very wrong to proceed to discuss this matter. It may very conceivably be sub judice,


and in my preliminary view it is. Therefore, I do not think we can discuss it here.

Mr. Bing: With great respect, in those circumstances, if you are not in possession of the facts, perhaps you would permit me to address my question as a Private Notice Question to the Secretary of State so that if he feels that the matter is sub judice he will be in a position to reply in exactly those terms. If you are not in a position to say that the matter is sub judice, surely, Mr. Speaker, you cannot rule it out of order on the ground that it is sub judice.

Mr. Speaker: My view on the information before me is that it is sub judice. I may change that opinion if I get further information to the contrary, but holding, as I do, that the matter is sub judice, I have to rule the hon. and learned Member's question out of order and I must, therefore, rule that there can be no further discussion of the matter now.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will it be in order when you have further information on this matter to submit the Private Notice Question again on the ground that your having information on the matter will be the first opportunity of raising it?

Mr. Speaker: That depends entirely upon the information which I receive.

Mr. Bowles: Mr. Speaker, if you are going to rule any further discussion of this matter out of order because you think it is sub judice, how are you going to get the information which may make you change your mind—from a newspaper, or how?

Mr. Speaker: I shall ask official sources to tell me. Believing, as I do, that this is still sub judice, I feel that we must proceed to other business.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would it be in order to ask you, Mr. Speaker, when you are

considering this matter at a later stage— and without discussing it now—to consider also the question whether there is any action which can possibly be taken to deal with this aspect of the matter, namely, that the Colonial Secretary, in the statement he made to the House, did rely upon something which was alleged to have taken place in the original trial for subsequent action of a judicial or quasi-judicial kind in Kenya? The position now appears to be—subject to what later may be discovered—that in fact there were no such judicial proceedings or trial, the whole matter was a nullity, and therefore the action taken was taken on a complete misconception of what the facts were.

Mr. Speaker: That is a very interesting hypothetical question which I shall consider when the hypothesis has become precipitated.

Mr. Wigg: On 18th December I raised the question of this trial as a matter of Privilege. On 19th December, having got the facts from the Attorney-General, you then proceeded to give a Ruling. It subsequently transpired that the information supplied to you by the Attorney-General was incorrect, certainly in one respect. I hope, therefore, that I can ask you to take great care on this occasion that the information upon which you act is 100 per cent. correct.

Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly scrutinise any information I receive on this matter with the same care as I scrutinised the submission of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) relating to the question of Privilege.

Mr. Hale: Quite briefly, the decision of the Supreme Court of Kenya is that this matter was never sub judice because there was never a judex that was competent.

Mr. Speaker: That is the hon. Member's view, but we must wait for further information.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[21ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1953–54

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £115, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Scottish Industry, Employment and Wellbeing for the year ending on 31st March, 1954, namely: —


Civil Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, 1953–54



£


Class I, Vote 25, Scottish Home Department
10


Class VI, Vote 1, Board of Trade
10


Class V, Vote 8, Ministry of Labour and National Service
10


Class VIII, Vote 13, Fisheries, Scotland
10


Class IX, Vote 6. Ministry of Fuel and Power
10


Class IX, Vote 1, Ministry of Transport
10


Class VIII, Vote 8, Forestry Commission
10


Class VIII, Vote 8, Forestry Commission (Supplementary Estimate)
5


Class V, Vote 17, Housing, Scotland
10


Class VIII, Vote 3, White Fish Authority
10


Class VII, Vote 1, Ministry of Works
10


Classs VIII, Vote 11, Department of Agriculture for Scotland
10


Total
£115

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Johnston: In the closing sentences of the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour last night—a speech on which we must all congratulate him—he said that he did not end in a spirit of gloom. We on this side of the Committee, and I believe on the other side also, did not start this debate in a spirit of gloom. We started it, first, in a spirit of impatience, and secondly, of anxiety. Our impatience is with Her Majesty's Government, and nothing the Secretary of State for Scotland said yesterday in any way allayed that impatience.
My impression of the Secretary of State's speech was that it was an admirable historical record of what had

happened in Scotland in 1952. It contained one or two minor points about the future, particularly about the exploitation of peat in Caithness—which was started by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn)—and the re-allocation of the grants for Highland roads, but apart from that it was nothing but an historical resumé.
We do not expect the Scottish Office to be merely an historical records office. We expect the Secretary of State to be a spur, and not a filing cabinet. We got the impression—and I say this with regret, because I have great personal affection for the Secretary of State and a great deal of admiration for him—that he was not showing that drive and enthusiasm which are so essential in the Scottish Office if Scotland is to prosper.
We are very glad to see the President of the Board of Trade here today, because throughout our debate yesterday I felt that we were starting at the wrong end of the problem. Yesterday, we dealt with the problem of how to produce. That is not the problem of any modern industrial society. The problem is not to manufacture; it is to sell, and the problem of selling is particularly one for the President of the Board of Trade. It is a problem which all industrial societies have to face, and always have had to face, and it is made more difficult nowadays by the fact that we are not the only industrial society. Germany and Japan are coming back into the industrial field, and many countries are setting up their own industries and protecting them.
The fundamental problem arises because the world balance is upset. The industrial countries are becoming relatively richer than the non-industrial countries. I have no statistics to support this statement, but it is probably true that, for example, when the East India Company started trading with the Indies there was very little difference between the wealth of India and the wealth of the countries with which India traded. I imagine that the Indian peasant was relatively little worse off than the peasants of Europe.
That has all changed. The result is that in vast areas of the world there is not now the buying capacity which the trading nations of the world require. If we are to increase our selling we have to do two things. We have to get back


to our 19th century habits of investing abroad and of granting very long credits. I realise that that is not going to be easy. It means that this generation will have to be content with bread, in order that the next generation may have bread and a hope of some butter and jam with it. That is a large problem, with which it is not suitable to deal today in more than general terms. It is a Cabinet problem, and not one for the President of the Board of Trade alone. But the President has various responsibilities for trade, both at home and overseas, and he can do much to promote that overseas trade.
I should particularly like to ask him what is happening with the overseas guarantees. The Committee will remember that in 1939 we passed a further amending Act which greatly extended the power of the President of the Board of Trade to guarantee credits to those who were trading abroad. I should like him to give some particulars of what is happening to those credits, and how far he is making them avaliable to industrialists in Scotland.
I have the impression—it is nothing more than an impression, but I think it is well-founded—that, while the existence of these industrial export guarantees are well known to the larger industrialists, they are hardly known at all to the smaller industrialists in Scotland. Despite what the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) said yesterday, Scotland is still a country of small industrialists. There are great firms, like Distillers and, in my own constituency, J. & P. Coats, which do not require to have these facilities advertised to them, but there are many smaller firms which do.
What does the President's Department do to advertise the existence of these facilities to smaller industrialists in Scotland? It is easy enough for the large firms to find openings for trade abroad. It is worth their while to send special representatives abroad and, in many cases, it is worth their while to maintain those representatives abroad, but what is done to help the small man whose entire trade may be a few hundred thousands a yead or even a few thousands a year and who has no knowledge of what the markets are abroad or of the needs abroad?

What does the right hon. Gentleman's Department do to help that man, first of all in telling him what those abroad require and, secondly, in bringing to his notice opportunities of trade abroad?
I have an impression—again, it is no more than an impression, for I am not an industrialist—that there are many opportunities of trade abroad which the small firms would seize if they knew of their existence. Very many small firms have by various means got markets abroad which they maintain and supply and on which they do very well, greatly contributing to our balance of payments, but I have a feeling that there are many more opportunities which would be taken, certainly for the small firms, if only the small firms knew of their existence.
It is one thing to have an opportunity but it is another thing to take it, and my impression is that while the big industrialists in Scotland—I have mentioned two but there are many others—are well enough provided with capital, the smaller industrialist is very short of capital. I do not blame the Government very much for this, although I believe their credit restriction policy will need reconsideration. I certainly think their policy on the Bank rate requires very rapid reconsideration indeed, for two reasons. First, it puts up the price of the commodity. The only commodity the price of which the Government actively and absolutely control is money. Increasing the interest rate puts costs up and makes it more difficult to compete abroad.
Secondly, it makes it more difficult to get credit. I refer not only to the retrictions imposed by the Government and the banks on credit but to the fact that even if a firm has a project for which Government permission has been obtained, or a project which would get permission from the Government or the banks, the present policy makes it more difficult to cover the necessary credit with adequate security because the increase in the Bank rate has led to a depreciation of securities. I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is thinking of this problem. It is time to think of easing the interest rates for those two reasons.
I do not blame the credit difficulties on to the Scottish banks which, on the


whole, are very good indeed about credit. They are also pretty good, and much better than the English banks, in granting credit to the person rather than to the security of the person. In fact, it is sometimes surprising what credit is granted by Scottish banks on the man rather than on his assets.
There is one particular difficulty about credit which I should like the Secretary of State to consider. In England a company can obtain credit by giving a floating charge over its assets. That is not possible in Scotland. Scottish law does not recognise a floating charge over assets. As a result, a Scottish company or firm may have assets on which it can obtain no loan because it cannot give the necessary security. This position has existed for hundreds of years, but in present circumstances it is well worth investigation, and I suggest to the Secretary of State that, in conjunction with the Lord Advocate, he should remit for consideration the question of the advisability of an amendment to the law so that we may have in Scotland something equivalent to the floating charge. I know there is something to be said against it, but the question is well worth examining.
Reverting to the creation of opportunities and the inability to take them, many of the small firms and companies in Scotland, and indeed some of the large firms, have factory buildings totally inadequate at the moment and quite unsuitable for expansion. I am very sorry to hear that the Government intend to maintain their non-implementation of—or, if that is thought to be putting it too high, their unwillingness to implement—Section 3 of the Distribution of Industry Act under which it was possible for local authorities and the Government to build factories. I think the Government should face this: it is very unlikely that new factory building will be done by small private enterprise firms in the foreseeable future. The big company may do it but the small company has not the resources or, if it has, on the whole is unwilling to risk them.
I realise that this is contrary to general Government policy and to the whole Conservative idea, but the Government must make up their mind that they will have to invest in industry. I know that they

give loans and sometimes grants to industry, but I am opposed to such a policy and would much rather see the Government invest directly in industry, taking the equity rather than the debenture. There is nothing new in that. The founder of the modern Conservatives had such an adventure with the Suez Canal shares, and I understand that much of the Grangemouth experiment, which occupies so much of the Report on Scotland, 1952, is largely Anglo-Iranian. That is direct Government investment in industry, and it must continue, because the risk capital is not now available. Certainly it is not available for the smaller industries.
The reason it is not available for the smaller industries, in my view, arises from the psychology of the Scot. I do not think it is always realised how much the investment practice of this country has changed in the last 50 or 60 years. At the end of the Victorian age it was fairly certain that if a man had money to invest he invested it in a local enterprise. That was partly because the wide facilities of the Stock Exchange, as we know them, existed but were not so well publicised as they are now.
The second reason was that investment was possible for the small man. The majority of businesses in this country started rather like Lord Nuffield's business—with a bicycle shop or something of the sort. That is all changed now. I do not think that there is going to be much of that type of investment. The result was that a man was able to invest his money in a small business that grew and grew until ultimately he had a large business which was floated off into a public company.
As a result of the increase of investment facilities and of the native caution of my countrymen, we have now a very great reluctance in Scotland to invest risk capital in local enterprise because the local enterprise is too local. In my profession I see from time to time inventories of estates of anything from, perhaps, £2,000 to a substantially greater sum, and the astonishing thing—at least, astonishing to me—is that one finds that in most estates the investment is first in Government securities, second in banks, third in insurance company shares, and fourth— and this is the more modern one—in investment trust companies. One rarely


finds the money invested in a local enterprise, unless the investor happens to have control of the local enterprise; but there is no what I would call equity investment in local enterprise, or very little.
The reason for that, as I said, is caution, the idea that one spreads one's risk as much as possible, and, as a result of that, what is happening now is that more and more local savings are going first into insurance premiums and second into companies which have a wide basis for their activities, the shares of which are readily realisable. There are plenty of people who invest in Distillers and in J. & P. Coats, but we want plenty of people to invest in x y companies.
I suggest that the way to achieve that is for the Government to invest in local companies. If the Government will not do that, and frankly I am not at all hopeful that I shall persuade them to do it, I suggest that it is high time that local people in the localities in Scotland should take it upon themselves to float investment companies, not with the idea of the present Investment Company of simply buying stock in established concerns, but of investing in equities in local concerns.
There are, of course, difficulties, but I think that those difficulties can be overcome, and the first way to overcome them is, of course, for authoritative opinion to declare it to be impossible, because we in Scotland have never liked authority very much, and generally if we are told that this is an authoritative opinion we kick against it. If we are told a thing is impossible, that is the best way to encourage us to do it. I do not think there should be any difficulty in getting a vast body of informed opinion to condemn my idea.
I think it is quite certain, indeed, that the right hon. and noble Lord who used to sit in the House for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch, and sat on the Government Front Bench, will readily condemn it in his financial papers. I think he has sufficient regard for Scotland to do that for us, and I am hopeful that the President of the Board of Trade, or, if not, another of the Ministers, may condemn the idea, for, of course, if we get Government condemnation of an idea, that immediately arouses such enthusiasm in Scotland for it that it is bound to be a success.

Sir William Darling: Do I apprehend that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that there should be investment by the Government in local industry? Then how is that investment to be brought about? Does he propose to raise the Income Tax —my Income Tax—to invest in local industries?

Mr. Johnston: If necessary, yes. But is it necessary? I doubt if it is. It would be first of all on such a scale that it would mean very little, and second it would mean such a vast surge of activity in Scotland, in the United Kingdom, that it would result in very much greater taxable capacity. We did it for Anglo-Iranian. I do not know what the Government investment is, but it is possibly tremendous in Anglo-Iranian. That money originated, of course, in taxation, but it must bring in vast sums which must result, presumably, in a reduction of taxation at the end of the day. Surely, that is agreed?
I am asking the Government to expend a little now in order to get a return from expanding business in the future. Surely it would be much better to adopt such an idea as this rather than to allow industry to stagnate? If industry stagnates we inevitably have a rise in the rates of Income Tax. If we have a stagnating industry we lose income to tax. What I want to do is to increase the income, with results on taxation.

Mr. J. Grimond: I certainly very much agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's plea that people should raise money and reinvest it in Scotland, but does he not want the Government to throw difficulties in the way? Did not the Government of his own party throw difficulties in the way of investment? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman in favour of allowing investors to keep their rewards?

Mr. Johnston: I am in favour of new capital. I started by saying that I thought that the Government would now or in the very near future have to reconsider their whole attitude towards the Bank rate and capital investment. I think they will. They cannot open the flood gates immediately, and cannot give a general authority; they will have to look at every point; but I think that these projects, particularly these comparatively small projects, are worth looking at.
The next thing to make this a success is to make it local. I thought that the idea of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), that we should float a company to build the Forth Bridge, was admirable. I do not know anything about the economics of it, but I think it would make a magnificent Scottish gesture, and I think gestures are very significant and worth while. I think the Coronation and everything we have done in the last two months has been worth while as a boost. If we in Scotland saw this road bridge up over the Forth it would give us a feeling that something really big and worth while was happening in Scotland.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: These projects are most interesting, but do I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to contend that, public enterprise having failed, private enterprise should take its place?

Mr. Johnston: Public enterprise has failed only in so far as the Government refuse to get on with it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: And the Government before?

Mr. Johnston: And the Government before, yes. That is what I am saying. Since we on this side of the Committee are not in power at the moment we cannot do anything about it. What I am doing is the next best thing: I am trying to bring some encouragement to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South.

Sir W. Darling: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman repentant now that he is not in power?

Mr. Johnston: I cannot think of an adequate reply to that, but I think there is much in the hon. Member's idea, and I think it well worth trying, and I should certainly support him if he were to go further with his project.
Is there any reason why we in Scotland should not carry on with these local investment trusts? We have to get local enthusiasm. To get local enthusiasm means that we must start in places where there is local enthusiasm. The obvious places are either in my own constituency, which has a great pride in being itself, or in the North-East of Scotland. Of course, we must have local rivalry. Local rivalry can be quite easily engendered.

I may engender a little myself today by saying that it would be quite impossible to start in Edinburgh, which lies somewhere between the Celtic twilight of 1746 and the founding of the "Edinburgh Review" about the beginning of the 19th century. That is one of our difficulties in Scotland. We are inclined to look over our shoulders to what we imagine were the glories of the past rather than to get on with making a success of the second half of the 20th Century.
I put this suggestion forward. I give it to the two hon. Members for Aberdeen, and I hope that city, which I know very well, may start it. They have the people in it and they have the money, and they might start by building a first-class new trawler and show up some of those awful things that lie about the docks, which I have seen so often. The second thing they might do is look at the question of quick-freeze, and the third thing they might do is see whether they cannot stop this habit, spoken of by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire yesterday, of moving beef on the hoof rather than wholly processed from the North-East. I think that there should be in Aberdeen and in Aberdeenshire such processes so that there would be no beef cattle moved on the hoof, other than those magnificent animals which go to the Americas.
There are many other ideas which might be applied and which the extremely able people in Aberdeen could do. I would make it a local thing, and I see no reason why it should not be a success. It can be a success if interest in Aberdeen is aroused, not only the interest of the people with a large amount of money but, much more important, the interest of the people with a small amount of money, because I think that the day of large investment by the single individual has gone, and we had better recognise that it has probably gone for ever. There is no reason why this local interest should not be aroused, and if there is a certain amount of share peddling I have no doubt that the Lord Advocate will tell the President of the Board of Trade that, despite the statute about share pushing, he has no intention of applying it to local projects.
These are things which we can do for ourselves. I think that, in the light of


the present Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland, we have to do them as largely for ourselves as we can, because I have no hope, quite frankly, of the present Government doing a great deal for industry in Scotland. I should like to believe that they would, but I do not think that they will. If they cannot, we have to do them for ourselves, and I think that it is a good thing possibly that we should.

Sir W. Darling: Hear, hear.

Mr. Johnston: I have at least got the encouragement of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South. Of course, there are difficulties, and let us face them. The difficulty of local investment is not only a question of raising the necessary risk capital; there is the difficulty which arises from a very good quality carried to excess, and that is that Scotsmen on the whole are a highly individualistic race, and that individualism is carried to such an extent that we are very unwilling to combine one with the other. We would prefer to be cock of our own dung-hill than scratch a living with another in a much better midden. I am sure that whatever difficulty the President of the Board of Trade may have in understanding that language that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) has none.
That individualism results, as I say, in what I regard as too many small local companies which might very well be combined together, and if combined together would offer, first, better opportunity for investment, and second, better opportunity for expanding trade. I do not believe that the large company has necessarily any virtue which the small has not; I do not think it has. I think that it depends entirely, first, on the nature of the trade, second, on the amount of capital necessary, and third—and most important—on the capacity of the persons at the top who run it. One man may run a platoon successfully and another an army group.
I think that we have in these investment corporations I have suggested to walk warily and proceed to necessary extensions. Much of the necessary extension of business is retarded because of the fear that if a business is expanded the person in control will lose control. He is unwilling to enter into partnership with "B"

and to take "B" in as a shareholder because he fears that "B" may gain control. That is a matter which has to be got over and it is difficult to get over because of the psychology of the Scotsman. But it can be got over, and has been got over frequently in the past.
The other difficulty of industry in Scotland—and it is a difficulty which was mentioned yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary and which caused me some disturbance—is that towards the end of his speech he said, in effect, that if a trade recession were to come, which naturally both he and I hope does not come, those at the circumference would suffer more quickly than those at the centre because of our geographical situation. I think that is not necessarily so. I think that we have to consider the location of our industry afresh in this country. Every time I move about this City of London I regret that the statute of Elizabeth I, I think it was, was not put into effect—the statute which was intended to prohibit the growth of the City of London. I think that it is a fantastic place and must be very, very expensive not only to the individual, which we all know about, but to the country as a whole. Quite apart from that, I should think that the Minister of Defence goes to bed with a headache every night when he thinks of the defence of this area of the United Kingdom.
If we are to distribute our industry, we have to take positive Government action. I am surprised that more positive Government action has not been taken in view of our experiences in the period from 1939 to 1945. Secondly, we really must look into the question of costs of transport. I realise, as everyone does, that the ideal situation so far as cost is concerned is to have the consumer industries near to where their products will be consumed. That is, of course, the question of cost as it affects the producer and the immediate consumer. I am, however, far from satisfied that that is the best way so far as the economics of the country are concerned.
A factory might be erected on the Great West Road because it is to supply London, and the transport costs appear to be cheaper than if the factory were in the constituency of, say, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East. As far as rail charges alone are concerned, it is cheaper; but the question of cost involves


far more than that. The cost to the community of siting a factory on the Great West Road must be appallingly high. It involves the provision of roads and transport, housing and schools, in an area which is already grossly congested and which is nothing more or less than a bull's eye in the event of enemy aggression.

Sir Robert Boothby: The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to my constituency. The only thing that stops people putting factories in my constituency and makes them put them on the Great West Road is the cost of transporting the products of the factories in my constituency to the markets in the South. Get rid of that, and we will get all the factories that we want.

Mr. Johnston: I thought I had made my point; if not, the hon. Member has made it for me.
So far as I know, there has never been an examination of this question of the cost of location of factories. It would make an admirable subject for investigation by the Cambridge School of Economics or some similar body. It is always assumed, simply by looking at the cost of moving from "A" to "B," that the shorter the distance the cheaper the proposition; but it is not necessarily so if one regards, not the cost to the producer and the consumer, but the cost to the country as a whole. I should certainly like to hear of the possibility of introducing either a flat rate or a tapering charge—and it can be done now that we have nationalised railways.

Sir R. Boothby: Hear, hear.

Mr. Johnston: But I do not think that any of my suggestions are nearly as important as the question of morale. To those Members who have not seen it, I commend an article in a paper with which I often disagree—the "Economist"— which this week analyses what might be called success in building up industry. The great difference between this country and the United States is the sort of bounce that the American economy has. That bounce, if I may so describe it, is because the citizens of that country believe that they are "going places." They are willing to experiment.
On the whole, we are far too conservative. In the past—but not now, I hope— we lacked that push which is really a belief in our own future. The biggest thing that matters in the success of the United Kingdom as a whole, and Scotland in particular, is a belief in our own future. Whatever the complexion of the Government, we should have a great belief in our future.
Going about Scotland as I do, and being old enough to remember the silly 1920s and 1930s, I notice nowadays a remarkable difference in the climate of opinion and belief in our own country. The best example of that is this two day's debate. It has not been the kind of debate, as was often the case in the past, in which the Government were asked to do this, that or the other, but it has been a debate which displayed a determination to try to do something, with or without Government assistance, for ourselves.

4.36 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene for a few moments at this stage. We are spending two days in debating the industry, employment and economic well-being of Scotland. Having listened to the greater part of the debate yesterday, from the speeches of the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, throughout the debate and including the speech to which we have just listened from the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston), I think that we have had a dispassionate, objective and wholly helpful analysis of the problems with which we have to deal. I shall try to maintain the same tradition.
My claim to speak in the debate is due not to any native origin, but to my position as President of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade have many responsibilities affecting Scotland. To start with, we are what is called the production Department—not that we produce things, but we answer questions about them—for a large number of industries which are situated in Scotland. In addition, we are the Department responsible for commercial policy. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. and learned


Member for Paisley when he said that it is in the wider aspects of our economy, not only in manufacturing, but in selling, that we must look for the prosperity which we desire.
I rather liked the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman glanced back almost nostalgically at the 19th century. I am inclined to agree with him in his elaboration of the many virtues of our Victorian ancestors in this matter. I was only a little sorry that having begun with the praise of thrift, he came very nearly to advocating share-pushing in the later part of his remarks.

Mr. A. Woodburn: That is collecting thrift.

Mr. Thorneycroft: One of the principal responsibilities of the Board of Trade in Scotland concerns the range of problems to which we generally refer under the general term of "Distribution of Industry." Where is industry to be found, how is enterprise to be encouraged, when and where should factories be started and people employed, and what is our attitude to Development Areas? Many hon. Members yesterday devoted a great part of their remarks to dealing with these problems, and I want to say a few words about them.
I should like to begin, however, with a few general observations. I do not want to be dogmatic about these issues, but I think it is worth while trying to get the problems of manufacturing industry in Scotland into some kind of perspective. We would be deceiving ourselves if we pretended that there was some trick solution connected with distribution of industry policy which could bring about a major alteration in Scottish economy. The life of a great nation is not really determined by how a Development Area is demarcated or by the precise terms and conditions upon which Government assistance can be given in the way of building factories.
Scotland's future, as many hon. Members said in the course of the debate, does not depend on minor adjustments in administration. It depends on the skill of her people, on her resources and on the energy with which the people of Scotland fling themselves into the development of their great basic industries of

agriculture, fishing, forestry, iron and steel, shipbuilding or heavy engineering. Unless those foundations are established and maintained nothing else is possible. No alterations in distribution of industry policy will serve unless the foundations are right. Equally, if those great basic industries of Scotland are prosperous and expanding, then it is true to say that other industries will be attracted there by reason of the very demand which that expansion will create. I make no apology for stating what are the elementary fundamentals of the situation in any policy for Scotland.
I should like now to say a few words about the role which any Government can play. In a sense the role of Government is in any event a limited one. Governments can persuade if they chose; they can, I suppose, from time to time direct; they can encourage people sometimes and they can obstruct people; but very seldom—and this only in a rather limited field—can they initiate. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire asked could we not do more in getting the nationalised industries to Scotland or expanding them there. The first thing I would say about that is that the same principles apply to industry whether it is publicly owned or privately owned. The nationalised industries cannot be expected to accept terms and conditions less advantageous than those enjoyed by private industry in the same sort of role.
Certain of the nationalised industries are not appropriate for certain areas of Scotland. There cannot be coal mining all over the Highlands. Do not let us underestimate what the nationalised industries have done in the Highlands in recent years. I need not remind the right hon. Gentleman what the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, for example, have done in that area. But whatever one can do with the nationalised industries, the dynamic forces which are essential to progress must come, under all Governments at least in the main, from the ideas and ambitions of individual, private people. If those are not present nothing else is very likely to prosper.

Mr. Woodburn: I do not disagree with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but let me give him an example of what can be done by Government persuasion. Some time ago the Government persuaded the Department of Scientific and


Industrial Research to establish a research post in the new town of Kilbride, and from that station has come new ideas, new science, new industry and improvements in matters of health. Just after the war we persuaded Ferranti to remain in Edinburgh and develop electronics. What I was meaning was that the establishment of some of the new types of industries in Scotland instead of South of the Border is a way in which the Government could help.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am not in any way under-estimating the role that the Government can play in these things. What I am saying is that in no circumstances whatsoever can action by the Government be a substitution for native industry, without which no sort of industrial prosperity could be sustained. What the United Kingdom wants, and what Scotland in particular wants, is a constant flow of ambitious enterprising men, profit seeking men if hon. Members like that, who are prepared to go to these places and set up industries there. They have not died out in this country.
I should like to give, if I may, an illustration of the sort of thing that I have in mind. About eight or nine years before the last war there was a scientist in London University who conceived the idea that he could get something useful in the way of chemicals out of seaweed. He used to go down to Bournemouth and bring some seaweed back in a bucket. He carried out experiments and he borrowed a lot of money from his friends. They spent up to £100,000 without getting any real return upon it, but at the outbreak of war, in part with the help of the bankers and in part with the help of the Government, they did establish the alginate industry which is a useful and prosperous enterprise, serving not only those who have got their money in it but the economy of the country as a whole. That is the kind of enterprise which is needed if we are to have the prosperity we require. We need men with ideas.
I now come to what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) was saying on this subject. The "Financial Times" a week or two ago, in what I thought was a wholly admirable supplement on British industry, carried an article on this point by Professor Paish, and I should like to

quote two paragraphs from that article which are directly relevant to the argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman addressed to the House. Professor Paish was dealing with the same point as the hon. and learned Gentleman—what are we to do for the smaller industries to get them established? He said:
These problems are particularly those connected with the establishment and growth of new businesses and industries which in the past have proved so potent a means of rejuvenating an economy tending towards stagnation. The low level of personal savings and the high levels of Surtax, death duties and (even after the recent reductions) of company taxation, combine to make it difficult or impossible for the successful small firm to get and keep the risk capital essential for rapid growth. The present system favours the large company with an established position as against the small, efficient concern that might have grown to supplant it.
Unless a complete reversal of recent tendencies once again makes a substantial amount of personal saving possible, or unless business profits, while no doubt harder to make, can be more fully retained, we must probably continue to rely on existing large companies, often without the spur of competition, to bring that flexibility and adaptability into the system that new businesses and industries so often gave us in the past.
I believe that that is a penetrating analysis of the problem which we are up against, and I cannot over-emphasise that it lies at the very centre of Scotland's present difficulties. How are we to get these new ideas translated into production?
The hon. and learned Gentleman, in a speech which was closely reasoned and extremely interesting upon this point, went straight to the heart of the matter. He said that there was a reluctance to risk capital because investment was local. I suggest that there is a much more practical way of getting the capital, the return on which from investment after taxation is not worth it. That is the basic reason why there is a shortage of this capital at present.

Mr. John Rankin: Who is imposing the taxation?

Mr. Thorneycroft: All Governments have for a long time.
The hon. and learned Gentleman tackled the subject boldly and sought to propound a solution. He said we must accept the situation that in the future we shall not get that risk capital. Therefore, Government must in some way or another provide it. I ask the hon. and


learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends to think carefully before they pursue that line very far. What does it mean when they say that Government will provide it? The Government has no risk capital available. The only moneys that a Government can raise come by further taxation, and the higher taxation is raised the more existing industries are starved of the moneys they require. Moreover, when they have raised taxation and thereby exacerbated the existing difficulties of some industries, where is the money put and who decides it?
"Government" sounds good, but Governments are composed of people like the hon. and learned Gentleman and myself, in the last resort. Ministers have many and large responsibilities. The idea that the President of the Board of Trade should go round Scotland to see where he can find a method of getting something new out of seaweed is something which appals me as a serious contribution to what is admittedly a great and grave problem, namely, how to provide the capital necessary for industry to thrive.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Seaweed does not appal the Secretary of State.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I agree that there are many ways in which Governments can and should help and I am coming to that side of it in a moment.
I am saying this: do not imagine that we can solve a basic shortage of risk capital by inviting Government to take over the roles which should normally be played by enterprising investors. The relaxations announced in the Budget on company taxation and Income Tax will help substantially in this direction. A start on that road was a prerequisite to any solid hope of increasing industrial development in Scotland.
If that should be the role of Government, as the hon. Gentleman said in a pertinent passage at the end of his speech, industry, and particularly Scottish industry, has a big responsibility upon its shoulders. If we are asked to ask men to establish new industries or branch factories in the remoter parts of Scotland, surely the people we should ask are the Scots themselves. And if they will not do it, one can hardly expect the industry to

arrive from, say, Surrey. I think that is the common view expressed.
Now I turn from the question of what industry can start to where it should go. The powers of the Board of Trade in this matter are limited. We can urge, we can encourage, in some cases we actually give practical help in the establishment of a factory, but we cannot direct. I am glad that we cannot direct. I think all Governments have been wise not to take powers to direct. In practice, the method throughout the United Kingdom has been to establish Development Areas within which special help, including the building of factories, can be given.
Now I want to say a word about how Scotland has been treated. About half the population of Scotland lives in one or other of the various parts of the Development Area—2,600,000 people live inside that Development Area. In those circumstances it is not easy to argue that the Development Area is not big enough, though pressure has from time to time been put not only on me but on previous Governments to extend it in one direction or another. That pressure has been resisted both on the ground that in the individual cases the prerequisites laid down by the Act have not been fulfilled and, more particularly, on the general ground that the wider the area is spread in which special assistance can be given, the more meaningless must the assistance inevitably become.
There is one point of principle raised in this debate. It centres round what might be called the Cairncross approach to this matter. That report suggested that the first objective of assisting development should be to accelerate the growth of new industrial communities in promising locations. Industrial growth should come first, ahead even of the need to reduce unemployment in other areas. That was the gist of the Cairncross approach—help the developing area at least ahead of the Development Areas.
Obviously, powerful arguments can be made out in support of an approach of that kind It has many attractions, but I ask the Committee to face the implications of that approach if it were accepted. There is, after all, only a limited amount of free industry, and if we were to weaken or abandon our approach from the Development Area policy we should


at the same time, abandon one of the principal weapons which all Governments have had in their hands for dealing with the unemployment problem.
I put this issue to the House on 25th February last in a debate on the wider issues of distribution of industry policy. At that time I noticed little support from Scottish Members in the House for abandoning the approach hitherto made. Let us consider how it would affect localities, for example, Lanarkshire. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), in an extremely eloquent and persuasive speech yesterday evening, on the problems of her area, spoke of the declining coalfield. Under the Cairncross approach Lanarkshire would not do so well as under the existing policy. Lanarkshire is a declining, not a developing, area; and in those circumstances and under Cairncross the weight of effort by Government would be transferred to other parts of Scotland.
The problem raised by the hon. Lady was also referred to by the hon. Members for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) and Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). It is a real and difficult one. Where new coalfields are being developed and to the extent, which is not yet known precisely, that new coal miners are required in these new fields, the transfer of those workers is obviously the right course. We should have no hesitation about that. Coal is necessary, the work is there, and if the coal is there then the workers in that industry at any rate have to go where the work is.
As the hon. Lady said, however, with new developments in the coalfields it may well be that not all the cases would be covered. Where that is so, the policy which must be pursued by all Governments is the policy we have pursued hitherto. Do not let us abandon it. In spite of all the difficulties, which we all know, let us try to influence or assist new industries to set up in those areas in order to take up any unemployment which might develop. In any event, we cannot have it both ways. A new factory can either be in a developing area or a Development Area. It cannot be in both, and for the moment we should do better to stick to the policy we are now pursuing.
Having said that, let me emphasise that the Development Areas have not an exclusive claim to industry. Areas where

there are pockets of unemployment and which are perhaps of too narrowly circumscribed a character to form part of a larger Development Area are given special consideration. We try to steer industry to them, and we give them certain preferences in the case of raw materials, Government contracts and matters of that sort. There has to be a flexibility in approach; I fully accept that.
It was with that in mind that I have been trying to do something in the case of Buckie—Peterhead. I do not pretend at this moment that I have been successful, but I have not stopped trying yet. This is a small area, largely rural and probably unsuited to the full Development Area technique. In fact, two or three small factories might do the trick. To some extent it illustrates the problems of Scotland to reflect that the energies of the Board of Trade, the Scottish Council and everyone else so far have not yet succeeded in solving that problem, I am hopeful that we shall do so before we finish.
My hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne) suggested that we ought not only to build the factories, but put in the machinery as well. There is a limit to the extent to which the economics of the situation can be distorted. A lot can be done to help an industry to start. Facilities can be given for cheaper rent while it is getting going, but if the person establishing it cannot pay for the machinery, even by raising a loan from the bank, it does not augur well for the success of the industry later. The chances of success in this area, as in so many others, depends, I think, not a little on how far Scottish industry is prepared to help itself.
Then there is the question of the new towns. Clearly, where there are new towns there is a need to balance the building of houses with the building of the industries. There are two new towns under construction—East Kilbride and Glenrothes. East Kilbride is in a Development Area, so the principles which I have just described would apply. Glenrothes is in a developing coalmining area. The present inhabitants are employed either in coal or in existing industries. So, in the case of Glenrothes, the new town corporation itself has power to build factories if required, and we can, as and when necessary—there is a good deal


of employment in the existing industries there—influence industrialists to go there.
I do not wish to detain the Committee too long, and I have nearly finished, but I should like to say very briefly what the general picture of factory building in Scotland has been. It has been the constant desire of all parties to encourage factory building and industrial development in Scotland, and all parties have been faced with very similar difficulties.
The post-war history of factory building in Scotland follows clearly the history of post-war trade. In the early days just after the war, when there was a pent-up demand, a world starved of goods and factories which had lacked development and maintenance, the only problem was how to space out the demand, how to meet this upsurge of desire to catch up with the years that had been lost.
By 1951, however, the post-war demands had, by general admission, begun to slacken, and the demand for factories was easing off. The position which we found in the autumn of 1951 was that a large number of factories had been started. The steel situation was extremely tight, and the position was that unless something was done it would be very difficult to complete even the factories that had been started. I am not casting any aspersions about this; there were difficulties on all sides.
In those circumstances, the right course to adopt was that which we did adopt— to place an embargo on new starts and finish the factories on which a start had already been made. The situation was brought under control, partly by external forces, partly by actions of the Government. Inflation was checked and to some extent demand was checked because that is checked when inflation is checked. The balance of payments crisis was to that extent dealt with. Today, the problem is not one of raw materials. Factories can be licensed virtually freely in any part of the United Kingdom.
What, against that background, has been done for Scotland? Scotland has 10·4 per cent. of the population, but she has 12·3 per cent. of all the new factory building which has gone on since the war. The proportion of Government factories is higher in the Scottish Development Area than in any other Development Area. The total effort by Government,

both in volume and in value, in the Scottish Development Area is greater than in any other comparable Development Area.
As for the actual buildings that have been completed there, more factory space was completed in 1952 than in either 1951 or 1950. It is true that there was during that period some falling off in the demands for new starts and the issue of industrial development certificates. It is also true that in recent months there has been an upward tendency in the latter.
The industrial future of Scotland depends, as I say, not on Development Area policy; it depends upon the trading outlook for the United Kingdom as a whole. Scotland's objective should be a freely trading world, with the removal of as many physical barriers to her exports as possible. I would say to those who have the interests of Scottish industry at heart that I think we should be wrong to put much faith in the physical control of foreign transactions. That would be to put a tourniquet on Scottish trade.
What the Scots want is a battering down of barriers which at present obstruct her export trade. What they want is a situation in which men all over the world are prepared to invest in Scotland, to do which they need to have some hope some time of being able to repatriate at least their profits and probably their capital if they wish to do so. What is needed is the establishment of the largest area of trade and payments which we can devise.
The outlook for the future is not one of lush, easy markets; it is one in which only competitive industries will be able to sell, an outlook peculiarly suited to the integrity and hard-working nature of the Scottish character. The type of things Scots produce—their skill in engineering, the sort of things they want to sell—are those appropriate to the kind of world which we are entering.
I have found this to be a useful and valuable debate. I have listened to all the points that have been made, and I hope to listen to many more during the course of the day. I have not been able to reply to all the points, but I will certainly promise to study in detail all the suggestions that have been made. When the House rises I intend to see some of these areas in Scotland for myself and to renew the co-operation and study which we have initiated in this two days' discussion.

The Temporary Chairman (Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray): Mr. Timmons.

Mr. W. G. Bennett: On a point of order. May I ask your advice, Major Anstruther-Gray? Could you advise the Committee as to how long each Member might be expected to speak? In view of the number who would like to do so and have some contribution to make, it might be helpful to the Members of the Committee.

The Temporary Chairman: I have no control over the length of time which any Member speaks, but I have always understood that brevity was to be encouraged.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. John Timmons: It is almost a year to the day since we had a somewhat similar debate, when many subjects were raised, and many suggestions were made in a general examination of the Scottish picture. We have now to ask ourselves, has Scotland changed for better or for worse? Personally, I think that the general picture is more or less static, with the exception that the recession has affected some areas more than others.
I do not wish to repeat what I said a year ago. I wish briefly to deal with some of the questions relating to the Development Area with which the President of the Board of Trade has just dealt. I disagree entirely with him in his reference to Lanarkshire as a declining area. I will prove to him later that it is not a declining area. We have to ask ourselves again what is the position with regard to new industries—

Mr. Thorneycroft: When I used the term "declining" I did not mean to imply any reflection on Lanarkshire, but that the coal seams were being worked out in that county.

Mr. Timmons: The position in Scotland, so far as I can see, has been more or less static in the last year. The situation has not improved and the constituency I represent is in one of the areas which have suffered very severely in the last 12 months. The right hon. Gentleman has been dealing with industrial estates and further schemes projected for the building of new factories. I hope that the areas which are to get those factories will have more success with them than has been the experience in my constituency.
I want to draw attention to some of the changes which have taken place in the past year. The Parliamentary Secretary knows very well what has happened about Vactric, because we have discussed this matter on more than one occasion. This time last year there were 1,300 to 1,400 people working there but today I am doubtful if there are 100. I want to know to what extent the Treasury were responsible in this matter. There is a general opinion that to a great extent Vactric was financed by the Treasury or at any rate they have the majority on the board of directors. Right or wrong, the general opinion is that the Treasury called in £300,000 odd invested in Vactric and, in order to realise their assets, had to clear out and go to a small factory in the south. Had a Labour Government continued in office that line of action would not have been taken at the time when there was a general recession in trade.
That is not the only case. There were many other factories whose production has gone down at Newhouses, Chapelhall, Carfin and Queenslie. There has been a great drop in the personnel employed in them. Smith's clock factory at Carfin was closed down a year ago. It was a big factory and at the time was employing more than 1,000. They cleared off and went to another factory, which was much larger and better able to meet their requirements. That factory was let to the Standard Cable and Telephone Company who have been there almost a year. A few days ago I went there and saw 25 wee girls working, and that is all there is there after a year. I understand that these people were advised by the Ministry of Supply to go there and take over the factory but, up to the moment, the Ministry of Supply have not told them what they are to produce there. Even when the Ministry make up their mind it will take six to nine months to get that factory going. That is not stimulating employment and well being in Lanarkshire.
Chapelhall have many fewer people employed than there were a year ago, and none of these factories is being used to capacity or serving the purposes for which they were intended. When such factories are built in a Development Area and millions of pounds are expended it is not very encouraging if the factories


are left practically empty. Before building more factories the first thing the Government should do is to ensure that the factories already there are working to full capacity.
At Queenslie a firm were producing Olivetti typewriters, but they are reduced to an infinitesimal number. Other factories are not working to capacity and during the past year there has been a general deterioration of the situation in my constituency and in Lanarkshire generally. I ask the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Scotland to note that people are asking what is happening to these areas and about the possibility of getting factories started there. I ask whoever is to reply to the debate to give some indication of what is to happen in this situation in order that I may go back and tell the people in Lanarkshire what the position is.
There was a rather amusing suggestion I heard a month ago about certain people who were trying to finance an undertaking which was to take over a huge factory of some 300,000 square feet and use it as a sort of indoor sports stadium. It is a serious situation if we have to build factories to the extent we have and spend money on them and provide plant and then see a beautiful factory taken over by people who are enterprising enough to make a profit out of it, to use it for a purpose for which it was not intended, but as a sports stadium. That is a shocking state of affairs. I ask the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Scotland to apply their minds to this problem. I hope I shall meet the President when he comes to Scotland. I think he may get a rude awakening when he comes to Lanarkshire.
In the last few years in Lanarkshire we have built many new industries and changed the whole pattern of industry. We have many people skilled and semiskilled who have been trained to work in those new industries but what is happening to the skill they have acquired? Many of them are now working on new housing schemes and all the new skill they learned has gone for nothing. Lanarkshire Education Committee adjusted the curricula in their technical colleges to

meet the needs of new industries which were springing up in Lanarkshire since the end of the war. New curricula on the technical side has been provided in order to meet the demands of new industries, but at the end of the day there is not much prospects for the student.
There are other questions to be considered. I assure the hon. Member for Woodside (Mr. W. G. Bennett) that I do not intend to delay the Committee too long, because I sat here all day yesterday. I want the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Scotland to give some consideration and thought to these matters. The President of the Board of Trade said that Lanarkshire was a declining area. He does not know Lanarkshire. It is not a declining area. There has been a re-organisation of the iron and steel industry and there is a projected scheme costing about £25 million for Lanarkshire. New blast furnaces, coke oven plants and melting shops are to be built.
Great developments are going on in my constituency. At Bellshill Stewarts and Lloyds are going ahead with a big scheme which should provide additional employment for 700 to 800 strong young men. Such large amounts of capital would not be spent on new developments in Lanarkshire if it were a declining county. Colvilles have opened new coke ovens at Tollcross. If an iron and steel industry is to be expanded on a big scale in Lanarkshire, it is absolutely essential to have adequate supplies of coking coal at reasonable prices for the blast furnaces and coke oven plants.
That brings me to the question of the "dying coalfield" of Lanarkshire. It is far from being a dying coalfield. If the right hon. Gentleman goes to the proper sources he will find that Lanarkshire has certainly not exhausted its coal reserves. In the report of the Secretary of State for Scotland last year reference was made to bores being carried out to the north-east of Glasgow. Five bores have been drilled—it may now be six—and two seams of coal have been found, one of them being of the richest coking coal in the British coalfields. The right hon. Gentleman is laughing. I do not know what he is laughing at.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am not laughing at the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Timmons: It is very rude anyway. That coalfield extends over an area of about 15 square miles. It goes right up to Brillieston and across the Clyde. The bores have shown a regulated thickness and they have proved the thickness of the seams. If the Minister of Fuel and Power had been here I should have asked him to direct the National Coal Board to go ahead with some developments in this direction and not wait until the whole of the Clyde Valley area is exhausted. These new sinkings should be made ready for development by the time the other pits close.
In September last I and my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) were invited to meet representatives of the National Coal Board to discuss with a number of miners the reopening of a pit in the Salsburgh area I told my hon. Friend that I wanted to discuss with representatives of the Coal Board something more important than the reopening of one pit. Soon after we had got down to the discussion, I could see that it was no use whatever to recommend the opening of the pit. I went on to discuss another area, the area where the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. have bored for oil. The borings have shown that there is plenty of coal in that area of Lanarkshire. It covers a very vast area and some of the seams are very thick.
Two years ago I submitted a memorandum to the then Minister of Fuel and Power about the Lanarkshire coalfield and asked that two mines should be driven to take out the two upper seams, which were two feet thick, and that would have provided employment for 300 or 350 miners who were working on housing schemes and other projects. If those two mines were driven, we should be on the coal within a month. This development could have taken place. We met representatives of the National Coal Board in September last year, and I put the proposal to them. A representative of the geological survey said that, judging by the bores, they were not satisfied that coal existed. I said that I was as much entitled to assume that what was indicated by the bores was coal as he was entitled to assume that it was not. Eventually the Coal Board decided to satisfy my hon. Friend and me by drilling

another bore, which would take a fortnight at most, and it was agreed that a report should be made to my hon. Friend and me. We have had no report. However, we are satisfied that no further bore is required and that the coal exists there.
We also discussed the Newhouse area. In 1939 the United Coal Company—I did not seek this information; it was given to me voluntarily by the chairman of the company—said that the whole future of the company was in the Newhouse area, where there was main coal at a depth of 70 fathoms below the River Drumgarry. There was a project in 1939 to resink two pits and go down further to the seams and develop the whole area. We discussed that with representatives of the National Coal Board in September. However, nothing has yet been done about it although we know perfectly well that the coal is there.
We also know that it has been the policy of the National Coal Board to close Lanarkshire. There are three areas in Lanarkshire where development could take place which would provide employment for nearly all the people who are still surplus to requirements. Men who have spent their life in the mining industry, including many young men, are knocking around in factories and working as labourers. They are working on housing sites or on road schemes or in sewers and they are men who would prefer to be producing coal for the nation. Because of domestic ties and for various other reasons they are not available for transfer to new areas.
Regarding the figure of 82 per cent. of redundant miners mentioned in the Report, and the numbers which have been transferred, I wonder if a check has been kept on the number of miners who have come back, because they have been coming back almost as fast as they have been going. These are the problems with which we are concerned in Lanarkshire. If we wish the co-ordination of new developments in the iron and steel industry to go ahead it is essential that we have adequate supplies of coking coal. I appeal to the Secretary of State, and particularly to the Minister of Fuel and Power, to use the powers of direction he possesses to ask the Coal Board to go ahead with these new developments in preparation for a decline in the Clyde Valley area

5.31 p.m.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Timmons) was right to deal at such length with the coal industry in his constituency. Were we able to solve in greater measure some of the problems confronting this basic industry many of our export difficulties would be overcome. There is no coal industry in my constituency, but I wish to discuss the question of the allocation of industry, and to say a word about one of the most important industries in my constituency, that of fishing.
We were encouraged by the general review given by the Secretary of State yesterday and will examine it against some of the reasons why he and the President of the Board of Trade were not keen on the main recommendations of the Cairncross Report. I agree it is right that we should concentrate on those areas where unemployment is heaviest. We must remember that in Scotland we are lucky enough to have an unemployment rate of only 2·7 per cent. Surely this is the moment when we should try to spread our industry a little wider. Should the unemployment figure rise, it would then be argued that it was impossible to do so.
In this country, and under a Conservative Government, we do not believe in the direction of industry or the direction of labour—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Some of us do.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The hon. Member says that some of us do. Yesterday I noticed that one hon. Member opposite, I think it was the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) was so much in favour of State control that he suggested that the Scottish Office and the Government should equip and run factories direct. Perhaps the intervention of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) goes to show the confusion of thought among many hon. Members opposite as to what is their policy regarding Scotland—

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady did not get the point of my interruption. We do direct people. We have conscription. We directed 20,000 people into the Armed Forces and to all parts of the world last year.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The Defence Vote is not down for discussion this afternoon.
I say that the intervention of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and the statements made yesterday reveal the confusion of thought on Scottish policy among hon. Members opposite. I should not be surprised if at the forthcoming Labour Party conference a good deal is said about the lack of policy regarding Scotland, because in "Challenge to Britain" there is only a tiny paragraph about Labour policy for Scotland.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Lady has made her comments, but I invited the Secretary of State yesterday to tell us what was the Government's policy. I think the noble Lady must agree the answer was that the future policy of the Government amounts to exactly nothing.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I entirely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. A. C. Manuel: In what way?

Lady Tweedsmuir: I agree that there are certain points on which we have not had sufficient information from the Secretary of State, and it is to those I wish to refer.
As we do not direct industry, or have direction of labour, we have to persuade and cajole industry to go to the North. I have been very disappointed that no Minister has yet dealt with the problem of freight charges confronting industry in the North. How are we to get industry going in the North unless we tackle problem? I understand that the British Transport Commission have submitted a charges scheme to the Government. Some members of the Commission including the Chairman, are due to retire, and presumably they will be replaced.
I wish to ask the Under-Secretary whether the Government have had time to examine the charges scheme and whether a decision will be taken upon it before the appointment of the new members to the Commission. Will the necessary legislation be introduced to ensure that there are steeper tapering rates for freight in the more distant areas from the consuming centres? If we can deal with that problem there will be a far greater natural inducement to industry to go to the North.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston), who opened the debate, devoted a large part of his speech to the question of credit facilities for industry. As we have had an encouraging review of our gold and dollar position, and as this country is now in a better trading position, I believe that the Government should consider the possibility of giving guidance to the banks to extend greater credit facilities to firms willing to establish themselves in the areas which the Government wish to see developed.
The Government can do only a limited amount regarding construction and it has been stated from the benches opposite that there are only a limited number of light industries to go round. Would it not be possible for the Government to consider placing one direct defence contract in the North-East of Scotland, say, in the City of Aberdeen? It would then be possible for Aberdeen to sub-contract out to the areas of Buckie and Peterhead. Aberdeen has all the facilities. During the war we were able to undertake defence contracts and sub-contract out to other areas, with great benefit to Aberdeen and to the North-East of Scotland as a whole.
Not only did this lead to the employment of a great deal of unskilled labour, but it also prevented skilled fitters and others from drifting to the south, which is what is happening to some extent today. If we could have some such arrangement local authorities in places like Buckie and Peterhead would, of course, do everything in their power to help to foster local growths.
As well as bringing in new industries it is vital that we should concentrate on our basic industries, and I would ask the Under-Secretary whether he is satisfied that there is any easing of the shortage of steel plates for shipbuilding. The Admiralty have afforded a good deal of assistance in securing more steel plates for certain industries in Aberdeen, but, nevertheless, some companies find it difficult to secure firm delivery dates.
Our basic and most important industry is fishing and at present the fishermen are facing great difficulties. Today, we have an opportunity to discuss not only Chapter VII of the Report on Industry and Employment, which deals specifically with fishing, but also the second Report

of the White Fish Authority. It seems to me that it is plain that since the first Report of the Authority was issued there has been a decline in the fishing industry in Scotland. The weight of white fish other than shell fish caught during the last year is down by 5 per cent. and the value of the catch is down by 10 per cent. British landings in near and middle waters are down by nearly 10,000 tons and the value by nearly £750,000.
Aberdeen, as the largest port in the Scottish fishing industry, has always been confronted with the problem so ably described by the President of the Board of Trade, namely, what is the part that the Government should play and what is the part that the industry itself should play? Obviously, neither can succeed alone. There are four points about which I want further information. First, there is the question of freight rates. Secondly, there is the vast question of overfishing. Has Iceland agreed that the action she has taken should be discussed by the Permanent Commission on Overfishing?
Thirdly, there are the fishing rights of foreign Governments. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) asked a Question recently about the Moray Firth. I wish to ask the Government whether they do or do not accept the ruling of The Hague Court in the recent action. If they accept it what are their views on the closing or otherwise of the Moray Firth? Fourthly, I want once again to ask what is the view of the Government on the question of foreign landings.
The White Fish Authority suggest that when the present fisheries dispute is settled we cannot maintain the present unregulated conditions of foreign landings. Most of us know that the Icelanders are tough people. I doubt whether that dispute will be settled for a very long time, if ever. I do not believe that we can wait for it to be settled. Therefore, I want the Joint Under-Secretary to tell us whether the Government have a scheme of import control.
We know that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade imposes certain restrictions on British landings as well as on foreign landings under certain conditions. We must also remember that we have many precedents for restricting foreign landings in time of glut. Only recently it was announced that now that the tomato crop was in flood restrictions


would be placed on the import of foreign tomatoes. While we shall always need foreign landings at certain periods to supply the British market, I should have thought that in time of glut it was important to have some kind of scheme for imports.
The background to all this is the search for new fishing grounds. If the Iceland grounds are closed to us and the Faroe Banks are quickly fished out we shall find, certainly with the near and middle water fleet, that there is great difficulty about rebuilding. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne) delighted us with a speech—we wish we could hear him more often—in which he talked about the piscatorial paradise of this country.
He has always been blessed in his home with the very best quality fish, no doubt bought at reasonable prices. I should not like to say anything which would damage in any way the fishing industry. I have many recollections of going down to the fish market at seven o'clock in the morning—

Sir R. Boothby: Hear, hear.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but I assure them that on one famous occasion the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) was persuaded by me to get up at seven o'clock in the morning. It was an experience that he has never forgotten.

Mr. Rankin: He has suffered from it ever since.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I have memories of going down in the early hours to the fish market and seeing the fish of which the hon. Member for Govan spoke that were of first quality. I also saw fish which had been badly damaged in transit. It had come from old trawlers, badly equipped, with poor icing conditions. Knowing, as I do, the conditions under which that fish would have to travel to some of the central markets, I would say that one must be careful in one's choice.
The fact remains that we must recognise that there will always be a limited home market for fish when there is a great variety of food available. More and more the consumer will want quality and reasonable price. Quality depends not only on the type of fish caught—I agree

that we have some of the finest in British waters—but on the processing and handling of the catch in transport. The Report recognises many of the severe problems which affect Aberdeen, the first fishing port of Scotland. It describes how many of the marketing and other arrangements are largely uneconomic, so detracting from the quality of the product and also raising its price to the consumer.
The Report of the White Fish Authority refers to two major problems. The first is the voluntary reorganisation of the industry. The second is the creation of a marketing organisation at Aberdeen. The Report says that both these major questions are still under consideration. Can the Government give any further information about them? The White Fish Authority was established to do for the fishing industry what the industry thought that it could not do by itself. This is a vicious circle. If the Government can play their part—and I have given various instances where I think they can—then it is up to all sections of the industry to try to reorganise the industry not only for the sake of the country but in their own interests.
Recently, the House passed a Measure which gave considerable power for the provision of loans and grants for the rebuilding of the trawler fleet. The loans have not been taken up because I think there is no confidence that builders can recover their capital outlay in a reasonable period of time. It was suggested by one right hon. Gentleman that the many wealthy residents of Aberdeen might perhaps gather together and produce one trawler. I am sure that they would be only too willing to do that if they had confidence, not only in the future of the industry as a whole, but also in all the ancillary processes which are necessary after the trawler has fished and brought the fish into port.
It is because we shall not create that confidence in the industry unless all sections work together to reorganise that one has no confidence that the rebuilding of the fleet will be done on a large scale. There have been a good many inquiries about grants for fishing vessels. This means, of course, that the industry is heavily subsidised. It is subsidised because it is a strategic industry of value to the country.
The criterion for loaning or granting money from any finance corporation is that certain conditions should be met. I submit that this should also be the sanction and the safeguard of the public purse. Some people in the fishing industry have asked for guaranteed prices such as those given to agriculture. But agriculture is closely controlled. The farmer is virtually told what to grow. If he shows bad husbandry he can be dispossessed. I do not know whether the advocates of guaranteed prices for the fishing industry realise that, more than likely, that involves strict control.
We all want to see a voluntary reorganisation of the industry. There are many men of good will and enterprise in it. These men are having great difficulty in confronting those others who perhaps do not see in the industry the future which I believe there can be if all sides get together. But if we continue to drift in present conditions the way is being laid open for those who advocate closer regulation and control of this basic industry. Because of the nature of it, we on this side of the Committee do not advocate that, but I would say that, where there is reorganisation and modernisation, I would advocate some tax remission for those firms concerned in rebuilding their fleets. There are a great many people who claim the right to tax remission for one reason or another. Tax remission is given to the mining industry, and therefore why not to this basic strategic industry? I quite realise that this concession does not go to the Mercantile Marine, although they are competing against subsidised foreigners, but I have always thought that it should do.
I do not see how, unless there is some tax advantage, we shall ever have the 10 per cent. replacement of boats, which is what we all hope to see. If we have a small, modern fleet, we shall have to face the fact that we shall have fewer men in the industry, and that is a matter of great concern to those who see the fishing industry as a reserve of men for the Royal Navy in time of war. It is an apparent contradiction that, in Hull and Grimsby, which have modern fleets and no subsidy, there are more unemployed than there are in Aberdeen, and there have been times when men with skipper's tickets have gone out to get jobs as mates or even as deck hands.
I think the reason for this is not far to seek. It is because fishing is a rigid profession, and the men who are in it do not easily go into other occupations. The sea is in their blood and it is to the sea that they will always turn if they can. It is for that reason that I have for rather a long time adumbrated these problems, which cannot be discussed in five minutes, because they are basic.
It is of great concern to the whole of Scotland that this vital industry shall not be allowed to go on declining and become a dying industry, as I believe it will unless something is done. Therefore, I would say that it is not only for the Government but for all sides of the industry to try to work together in a common partnership in order to ensure that it will not be long before we can get an adequate foundation of stability and not have this endless decline that we see in all the statistics every year. It is for the Government to give us their ideas on this problem because we shall never get a solution from the Opposition, who, in their policy statement "Challenge to Britain," never mentioned the fishing industry at all.

Mr. D. Johnston: Before the noble Lady sits down, would she agree, that, in view of the long delay in getting together all the various interests in the fishing industry in Aberdeen, the only real solution now is for either the Government or the White Fish Authority to step in and force them to agree?

Lady Tweedsmuir: That is the whole crux of the problem which I was trying to discuss. I remember that, when we were debating the Bill granting loans to the fishing industry, they were to be subject to a scheme of reorganisation to be laid before Parliament, and the information which I am seeking from the Government is whether the Authority have produced the scheme and what are the Government's ideas about it.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. John Taylor: One of the problems for any hon. Member who is fortunate enough to enter this "state of the nation" debate is that he or she is given so much material by the previous speaker that the temptation is to devote the whole time to answering points previously made.
I will make but one comment on one remark of the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir). I thought she was on rather dangerous ground when she accused the Opposition of confusion of thought about Scottish policy, because we have had in this very remarkable debate a great deal of most unusual philosophy from unusual forces on both sides of the Committee.
For example, the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne), after he had finished his peregrinations in his piscatorial paradise, was advocating a more complete kind of subsidising of industry than I have ever heard from those benches, and the noble Lady herself, in the general tenor of her speech, suggested that the industry in her own noble city could not survive without State assistance. Indeed, on this side of the Committee, there have been one or two contradictory philosophical contributions, which prove that, when we enter into a Scottish debate and deal with real practical problems, we tend to lose some of the sharp edges and become "A' Jock Tamson's bairns."
I want to use my time, however, on three points which may be regarded as constituency points, although I think that, in addition to that fact, they are also points affecting employment, industry and the well-being of Scotland. They concern the Forth Road bridge, the shale oil industry, which is a large indigenous Scottish industry, and Forth ports in general and the port of Bo'ness in particular.
I shall say very little about the Forth Road bridge, because it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy), the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) and probably by others. All that need be said to the Government about this project is that we regard it as a symbol. It is more than a very necessary—a vitally and urgently necessary— link in our transport system; it is more than an urgently required transport link for the growing industry in that particular area. It is now being regarded as an earnest of the Government's real intentions towards Scotland. It is so much a necessity that to neglect it further will come to be regarded in the eyes of the

public in Scotland as an affront that something more is not being done.
I thought that the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary on this subject which he made in his own constituency last week was singularly unfortunate, and particularly unfortunate coming shortly after the still more unfortunate impression which his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport had created a week or two previously when he met a deputation in Edinburgh. All that I need say further about that is that the large expenditure which he mentioned of £30 million is probably fairly accurate in present conditions, but the proposal to spread it over a period of years would have been something which the Government could regard as a practical proposition if they had wished to make any progress on this project.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I did not say the £30 million was for the bridge. The figure was an estimate of important road works in Scotland, other than the bridge, which called urgently for starts, if only we had the resources available.

Mr. Taylor: Yes, but those roads would not become immediately usable unless the bridge was there. In any case, some Government sooner or later will have to face the problem of providing more than £30 million to be spent on the roads in Scotland.
I now wish to say a few words about the shale oil industry of Scotland, which is largely centred in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde). It is a Scottish industry with a remarkable and chequered history and is at the present time operating at a loss, a fact which confronts us with a problem which has not so far been examined to any extent in the course of this debate.
Much has been said about our native ingenuity and ability and about the benefit which Scotland derives through industrialists and business people trying to pull us by our own boot straps out of our difficulties, to use the picturesque expression employed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour.
What is the position of the shale oil industry today? Twenty thousand people, including workers and their dependants,


are dependent on the industry for their livelihood. Although it is a combine or a company which is a subsidiary of a huge combine, there is still a family atmosphere in the industry. The people engaged in it work together and understand each other's points of view and problems.
The workers in the industry are in the dilemma that they have to refrain from pressing their perfectly reasonable and long-overdue wages claim because they know that if it were granted it would mean that large sections of the industry would have to close down and that once again unemployment would be created in an industry which was particularly prone to unemployment in the inter-war years.
On 17th March last, a joint deputation was sent from the management and the trade union side of the industry to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were received by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who listened to them with courtesy, as he always does, and who promised them careful consideration of their problems, as he always does. But no more has been heard of it.
Because the price of its products has fallen, the industry cannot hope to expand its production by initiative or in any other way. It is a rather expensive way of producing oil, and it is only through its by-products that the industry can keep going. However brilliant its management and however hard working its employees, there is no immediate way of expanding the industry. The only hope for its continued operation is some fiscal adjustment in taxation preference.
An increase in Excise preference is, as far as I can see, as far as the industry, and, I venture to suggest, as far as the Chancellor can see, the only hope of its being able to carry on. One of the problems which have to be considered when we have an indigenous industry of this kind is whether we can afford to allow it to close down with all the suffering that would involve for the 20,000 people dependent on it.
It would be a very great loss to Scotland if this industry were to go out of being. I am sorry to have to introduce another rather sombre note after the speech of the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South, who sees danger to her

own fishing industry in present circumstances, but I see a very real danger to the shale oil industry. There are still great deposits of shale under the soil with which the industry could deal to the benefit of Scotland's long-term economy.
I now wish to speak about the industry, employment and well-being of the port of Bo'ness, which was once one of the most important ports on the Firth of Forth. But for some years since the inter-war period, its activities have been steadily slowing down until its present position is causing very justified alarm among the shipping agents and the workers at the port.
It is in an endeavour to prevent its further decline and, if possible, to assist the revival of this port that I venture to raise the subject on the Floor of this House. Having tried every other avenue open to a Member of Parliament and having encountered nothing but resistance from those in a position to determine the port's future, I believe it to be my duty to lay the facts before the Committee and to ask for a reversal of the present policy adopted towards the port.
It is always advisable in this Chamber to avoid over-statement of the case and much more wise to use the language of under-statement. Were I to disregard that dictum, I would say that there is clear evidence that the port of Bo'ness is being sabotaged and sacrificed as part of a deliberate policy. However strong the temptation—and the provocation—I will refrain from such language, because my purpose is not to antagonise those in control, but to endeavour to secure their cooperation and to persuade them that there is really a strong case to be made for Bo'ness, and that it would be a mistake to let this useful port silt up and decay in desuetude.
It is a useful little port and can take ships drawing from 15 to 22 feet according to the time of the month and the state of the tide. It is conveniently situated on the south side of the Firth of Forth, which is an eastern estuary of growing importance, not only because of the development of the coalfield in the Lothians, but for strategic reasons. Although its equipment could not be called modern even by its most enthusiastic supporter, it is nevertheless reasonably efficient. Indeed, I have seen worse equipment on more modern docks.
I will say a few words about its coal-shipping equipment, because this is really the crux of its problem. Its coal-shipping equipment consists of three hoists called Nos. 1, 3 and 4. I believe that No. 1 hoist is higher than any other in any Forth port. It is certainly higher than most, and can tip the wagons farther, and, being served by five sidings with two turntables, it is capable of a very fast rate of shipment. The advantage of five workable sidings is in "mixing" up to five brands of coal. This mixing and loading can be carried out without locomotive power. This is a special advantage when loading has to be done outside the normal engine-working hours.
The other hoists, Nos. 3 and 4, are fitted with weighbridges and are situated close together. Thus they can be worked together, fore and aft, on suitable ships for simultaneous loading. The fact that they are seldom used nowadays is a sad commentary on the state of trade in the port. Anyone with a knowledge of port and dock operating will understand that No. 1 hoist, with its two turntables, is that which the ship agents prefer to use. The value of the hoist to the port is very considerable, yet this is just the very hoist which is being threatened by the present policy of the East of Scotland Section of the Docks and Inland Waterway Executive who have intimated, have almost declared finally, that they propose to remove one of the turntables from this hoist.
This may seem a small thing about which to take up the time of the Committee, but it is like the Forth road bridge in a smaller way—it is a symbol. If the turntable is removed, the effectiveness and efficiency of the whole of the port of Bo'ness become things of the past. Therefore, I speak about these matters in this detail, and with some feeling. The efficiency of this hoist as a swift-loading multi-mixing machine is at once ruined if this equipment goes, and it will be not only a very severe blow to the port but a great discouragement to the shipping agents who are struggling against many other obstacles to rebuild the trade of the port. It will be an additional blow to the already attenuated labour force in the port. It is proposed to remove the turntable to Grangemouth, and this, to Bo'ness, is
the most unkindest cut of all.

Grangemouth is Scotland's boom town. The development of a huge oil refinery has placed the town in the over-employed category. In certain groups of industry there are rather more jobs than there are men readily available. Grangemouth docks share in the general increase in activity which has been proceeding in that town since the end of the war.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) that we in Bo'ness do not grudge Grangemouth her prosperity. We admit freely that Grangemouth has better rail facilities to the west than we can possibly have at Bo'ness because of the terrain, but it is indeed galling to see the eastward trade items on which the port trade of Bo'ness grew and flourished in the past taken away from us. We believe that we can handle coal and timber traffic better in Bo'ness than they can in Grangemouth. We have better facilities—at least, we have good facilities—for general trade. There is no tenable argument for over-concentration of Forth trade into one port. There is a very sound argument for dispersal and for fair shares of existing traffic of a suitable nature.
There is another important factor. Bo'ness is an under-employed town. One of its two collieries, the Carriden pit, is in steady decline, while the other, the Kiniel pit, is being substantially developed, but the technical problems attending its development are formidable and will take some time. It is an undersea pit. Its equipment has to be housed on a narrow shelf of land because of the steeply rising hills at the back of the pit. During the interim period, while this pit is being developed, there is inevitably a state of trade hiatus, a semi-depression, in the town. Anything we can do to prevent its deepening is our plain and obvious duty.
With these considerations in mind, it is really a bit thick to be confronted with a process of trade strangulation, deliberate and calculated, in an unemployment-prone area to improve facilities in an employment-prone area. Let Grangemouth have its turntable by all means, but not at the expense of Bo'ness, which is already hanging on by its fingernails to the remnants of a once-flourishing trade. With all the resources of the Docks and Inland Waterways


Executive, and the whole of the area under their survey, they can surely find another turntable to transfer. In any case the manufacturers of turntables have not stopped manufacturing them. There is no reason why they should pinch or purloin ours. This is a relatively small thing, but it means much to the trade of Bo'ness. It would make little difference to the trade of Grangemouth.
The East of Scotland Section of the Executive will listen to no reason. They have made their decision. The British Transport Commission have been appealed to in vain. Our last hope lies with the Minister of Transport, whose representative is not here tonight, and with the Secretary of State for Scotland. Between them, those two gentlemen have the over-riding authority. Their right hon. Friends the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Fuel and Power should also have some interest in the matter. Their intervention will be very useful.
It may be the intention and the policy deliberately to allow this port to die. I stood at the dock gates the other morning and looked at the gradual silting up because of lack of dredging. As an ex-docker—although it is many years since I handled a hook—it was a very sad sight to see the empty docks and the silting up approach to the dock gates and a derelict dredger, unseaworthy, rotting away inside the dock. So far as I can ascertain, no dredging took place last winter in Bo'ness port at all. I doubt whether any has taken place since.
It may again be that it has been decided that this port is expendable and can be closed down. If that is so, let us know. Give it to us straight on the chin so that we know what is in front of us. Do not let us have this "death of the thousand cuts" taking away our best and more valuable equipment and neglecting to do essential dredging. This is a cat-and-mouse policy which is depressing and gives much uncertainty and anxiety to the people of the town.
As a port, Bo'ness has survived many body blows in the past. They rained so heavily in the inter-war years that Bo'ness was almost on its knees, when it was saved by the bell of the outbreak of war. During the war Bo'ness was, significantly, used by the Admiralty. Since the war it has struggled along doggedly, but there are limits to patience and endurance.

There is one ray of hope. I believe that it has been decided to agree to a capital expenditure of £20,000 for the electrification of the power plant that serves the docks. That is a hopeful sign. If, on top of that hope, we can have our turntable left alone, and if we can have the dredging attended to as it ought to be attended to, this port can take its place again as a potentially valuable national asset, as every one of our usable Scottish harbours is. Our strength will not have been lessened by the demise of this useful port.
The first step in its rehabilitation is for the Minister to see that the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive realise, in their quite understandable anxiety to show no red figures on their balance sheet, that they really have another responsibility to the nation. It is not the primary business of nationalised industries to show balances. Their primary responsibility—this applies particularly in Scotland—is to serve the nation and its people efficiently and well. For the sake of the expenditure of a few thousands, we can save this valuable port.
I feel rather guilty about detaining the Committee on a purely constituency point when so many hon. Members wish to speak, but because it is to me and to my constituents important and because I believe it to be symbolical I feel justified in making it.
We gave some problems to the learned Clerks at the Table in the number of Votes we put down for this debate. It was because of our anxiety that hon. Members should be allowed to range over the whole field of Scottish endeavour and Scottish potentiality. I believe we have succeeded in the debate as it has gone hitherto, and I believe that the debate has been wholly and fully justified. I am sorry that as yet we have not had any indication from the Government, except for patching up here and propping up there, of any clear, imaginative and forward-looking, effective policy for Scotland's future.
The Government's spokesmen have been helpful and have shown anxiety at the existing problems and it may be that the excellent suggestions which so far have come from both sides of the Committee in this debate will give them encouragement and ideas. I am sure that


the suggestions will help them to understand why we who represent Scotland are not coming here in any querulous spirit asking for a hand-out. We come here believing that there is a future for our country to be attained by our own firm endeavours.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. John Maclay: The Committee has undoubtedly enjoyed, among other things during this debate, listening to a Whip restraining his language. That has been a most delightful experience, but when the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) went on to exercise his full powers of persuasion on behalf of the entirely admirable port of Bo'ness we understood that, even if English Members do not always keep the figures right, no Scottish Labour Member would fail to do his duty when encouraged in such a persuasive way by his Whip.
In opening today's debate the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) paid a tribute of respect and admiration to the Secretary of State for Scotland but said that he felt there had not been sufficient drive. I believe that that was the general implication of his remarks. That surely was unreasonable, coming at this moment when only in the last two weeks the Secretary of State has delivered to us on a plate about £1,750,000 in additional local government grant and yesterday brought in another £1 million for much-needed road work. If that is negative work, the positive must be very exciting indeed.
At the moment we are getting leadership in Scotland from the Scottish Office. I am not making any party point here. The structure that has been evolved, with a Secretary of State, a Minister of State for Scotland and three Joint Under-Secretaries of State, as everyone will agree, is making possible much more effective work by each individual than their predecessors could do. It was no fault of their predecessors. As we all know, the load on the Scottish Office and on the Minister was terrific in the past. There is now a feeling in Scotland, which I sense in my own constituency, that there is a drive and direction from the Scottish Office that has not been possible in the past.
As we did yesterday, we have covered again in today's debate a very large number of subjects. It is very desirable that there should be such a number of Votes on the Order Paper, and the fact that so many Ministers are present is a tribute to the attention now being paid to Scottish needs. It is right that this concentration should take place this year, because undoubtedly we have reached a turning point in the whole industrial trend of the country. I do not see how it can be avoided.
In the eight years since the war we have had a sellers' market. We have had the fact that, until quite recently, if a factory was available one could secure a tenant for it. The conditions which prevailed from the end of the war until recently were ideal conditions for doing controlled experiments in the distribution of industry throughout the country. It is right at the moment to assess what has happened and from that assessment to draw certain conclusions for the future in Scotland.
I do not propose to go into great detail. This is a subject that requires a great deal of time, and in reaching my conclusions and stating them to the Committee I must leave out some steps only because, as I hope hon. Members will believe, of a wish to condense my argument. The first thing that emerges from a study of the last eight years in Scotland is that despite all the attractions of the great industrial centres and the fact of their being Development Areas, the trend of population has been slightly away from those areas.
Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) implied that the flow into the big cities was still continuing. I thought so, too, until the last few weeks when I studied this question. It is made apparent in the Cairncross Report that in the last 20 years the population of Lanarkshire—including Glasgow—Renfrewshire and Dunbartonshire has increased by 4 per cent., whilst the population of the rest of Scotland has increased by 6 per cent. It is not a big figure, but the trend is there. It is an important piece of background, in thinking of the future, that probably the great drift to the great cities is stopping, provided that we do something to see that people are not encouraged to start that drift again when things get a little more difficult.
That is the first important factor. The next is that the Distribution of Industry Act has been a very important element in the siting of industry in Scotland. Great advantage has been taken of it. Figures for the period 1946–1950 show that out of 281 factories only 53 were built by private capital, as against 228 under that Act. That means that the Distribution of Industry Act has had a very substantial effect on the location of industry. The President of the Board of Trade said many things in his opening speech with which I agreed, and I particularly agreed with him when he said that ultimately Scottish enterprise had made and would continue to make Scotland great. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the Distribution of Industry Act has had great influence in the past few years, but I would suggest that it is doubtful whether that influence will be as great in the near future. The impetus is slowing down, for all sorts of obvious reasons.
Another factor is that there is still a somewhat higher level of employment in the Development Areas than outside, except for certain pockets. But there are also within the Development Areas several small pockets where the percentage of unemployment is much higher than is the general average. I have one such pocket in my own constituency.
The third really interesting point that emerges from all the documents and reports that are now available, and which are very valuable, is that outside firms, the non-Scottish firms, have gone almost exclusively to the Development Areas, that is, to the great industrial belts. It is the Scottish firms that have been enterprising outside. That is a very important and very encouraging fact. The figures are significant. While for every one factory that non-Scottish firms have started outside the big, major, industrial areas they have had 13 inside, the comparable figures for Scottish firms is about one to five. That means that, in spite of the advantages which were to be gained from using the Distribution of Industry Act procedure, Scottish enterprise has been going strong outside the Development Areas. That is important when we come to think of What is to happen in the future.
We can be certain that there is no lack of enterprise in Scotland at the moment outside the great industrial belt,

provided it is made reasonably possible for enterprise to express itself. I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Balfour) is not here because he made a most interesting maiden speech yesterday, and I wanted to congratulate him on it. I have a fellow feeling for him, because I made my maiden speech after I had been a Member for four years and nine months. By a strange coincidence, my subject was exactly the same as his.
I was arguing in 1945, before the end of the Coalition Government, that there was a danger of the Distribution of Industry Act placing overmuch emphasis on the old distressed areas, and I stressed the importance of the old Scottish towns which were an ideal sort of community capable of expansion with much greater ease. I remember only too well what happened. I moved an Amendment in Committee upstairs, which would have produced rather more assistance outside the distressed areas than the distribution of Industry Act promised. Clearly the whole feeling of the Committee was with me. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) was conducting affairs, being the Minister concerned. He said he would consider what had happened in the Committee, and at that point the Coalition dissolved.
The same argument applies today as applied then. We still need the Distribution of Industry Act in the Development Areas, but I suggest that while we must continue to use the special facilities given by the Act—my own constituency has reason to be thankful for these facilities— I do not think much more can be done in these areas. The rate of new factory arrivals has slowed right down and we must recognise that the really effective period of that Act, for the time being, is probably over and we may be able to release the resources of the Act into areas outside the Development Areas.
Dealing for a moment with one of the pockets of heavy unemployment inside the Development Areas, I have analysed very carefully one of them, and I wonder how much of what I found applies to those parts of the industrial areas where the figures are abnormal. I found a case where there are 800 unemployed—400 male and 400 female. Of the 400 women, a very large proportion were married. As to the men, I will not


accept this word "unemployable" which is often used; I do not think there are a lot of unemployables. There are, however, people for whom the ordinary industrial development is not suitable.
I suggest there is a case for a very selective examination of pockets of unemployment, and where it is found that they do not constitute the type of labour which would benefit from another light industry, we should begin to apply some of these devices which were forecast in the 1944 White Paper on unemployment policy. I do not mean that we should adopt the whole Keynesian business to deal with one small town, but there may be a case for letting a town go ahead with, say, parks development or some kind of localised work, which will pick up the type of labour which is represented in the unemployment figures.
I should like to pass quickly to the rest of Scotland other than the remote districts. There is no doubt that there is initiative there. The President of the Board of Trade and others have been inclined to think that a good going proposition will get capital and will be able to make progress. I think that is probably right, but there are a lot of marginal cases where a new industry could be established with local interests.
The hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston), in his interesting speech, dealt particularly with this question, and while I do not agree with everything he said, I believe there is a great deal in it which requires examination. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) also made an excellent speech on this subject. Are we sure that it is as easy as it is sometimes made out for a good industrialist to get the buildings and the capital with which to start when he gets away from the Development Areas? I would expand on that, but I want to conclude as soon as I can. One could ask a whole string of questions, but probably I had better not do so on this occasion.
I come finally to the question of transport costs. This is the ideal moment to get that question thrashed out. There are two things happening. We hope that we shall know very shortly what will be the structure of railway and transport control generally in Scotland. According to what we have been told, it is clear that

there will be substantial powers in some body in Scotland for considering the special transport requirement of Scotland.
But there is a more important question than that which must be settled first, and that is the question of taper. Taper is a principle, and this is the moment for those who are acutely concerned to place their views before the Transport Commission so that the taper principle can be put specifically to the Transport Tribunal. If I understand the procedure, it is possible under the new Act, coupled with the procedure under the old Act, for the principle of taper to be referred to the Transport Tribunal as a matter of principle.
Clearly the Transport Commission cannot produce an effective charges scheme until that principle is established. My only hope is that it will be found that not enough attention has been paid in the past to the allocation of costs over long journeys. I think that if the question of taper is considered carefully with a view to using it to help to solve these problems of the remoter areas, we shall achieve more than any transport expert during recent years has ever admitted to be possible.
I am glad that the idea of the flat rate has been dropped. None of the Committees which have reported was enthusiastic about it. There are many dangers about the flat rate, whereas this idea of taper, if properly analysed, may go some distance to solving the transport problems, although it cannot affect places like the Outer Isles. We have undoubtedly got certain areas which are not capable of normal treatment. It is wrong to assume that there can be any general solution of the problem of the really remote areas. I think the most useful description of what is being done was contained in a speech made recently by the noble Lord the Minister of State for the Scottish Office. He based his speech on the theme of four roads to Highland prosperity, and I believe it indicated the basis of what can be done in these more difficult areas.
We should forget the idea that it is possible to provide cheap transport to the Outer Isles. There is not the volume of traffic to do this. Neither is it right that the main transport system should be saddled with the task of subsidising these more difficult areas. What should happen is that if the Government decide that one


area is losing population, they must make a special case and decide whether they will help that area as a community or whether they will help the existing industries by admittedly artificial means.
If we feel that by some natural process or general principle we can help in these remote areas, we are wrong. It must be admitted that it is extraordinarily difficult to get a living there now, but any development will have to be based on the existing natural resources. These areas will probably require quite special assistance. This is an ugly proposition to put forward, and I do not want to go into it in detail, but it is better to face that fact than to go on thinking that scheduling will solve the problem of these areas. Another possibility, of course, is that certain strategic industries might be placed in areas where they have not yet been put—even in the remoter areas.
I have tried to cover the three main categories of Scottish problems, based on our experience during the last eight years and the situation which we have now reached. In the long run, however, our prosperity depends upon our ability to pay our way in the world as a nation as a whole, and in Scotland as a whole. Clearly we are entering on a period of acute competition.
There is the question of shipbuilding, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne) dealt so admirably yesterday. Hon. Members have also been worried about the situation in our ports. In the long run the continued prosperity of our shipbuilding, and everything which depends on it, must rest firstly, on the quality of our ships, which we know is there; on delivery dates, closely related to the question of steel plate, which has already been dealt with by the hon. Member for Govan. But, above all, we are now entering a period when price is all-important. For a time delivery date was more important than price; today price is what really matters. We are up against intensive competition abroad. The yards building the bigger ships are in pretty good condition and will have full order books for the next few years, but this is a highly competitive business.
Management now realises that price is the important factor today, and will be increasingly important as months go by, and I believe that the men also know

that. I hope and pray that in the next few months nobody will mislead any part of this great industry and cause it to take any action which results in prices rising still further, with a consequent fall in our competitive potential.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Steele: I put it to the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) that although he is departing from the idea of flat-rate freight charges the effect of the tapered charge is just the same in principle. The railway service has to pay its way, and if there is a tapered charge the money has to be found somewhere else. I quite agree that the question of charges is important, but we have created a difficulty by denationalising long-distance road haulage transport.
It is quite clear that if we have any system which decreases the cost on long-distance haulage on the railways to help the areas in the North, additional cost must be borne by the traffic carried over the shorter distances, and it is that very traffic which is being attacked by the road haulage industry. I am convinced that we have taken a retrograde step in denationalising the road haulage industry, so far as helping these remote areas is concerned. The right hon. Member reminded us that he made a speech on this topic once before, and that the Government dissolved immediately afterwards. I am wondering if that is to be taken as a warning now, and whether we ought to prepare for the next Election.
I have listened with interest to the speeches of hon. Members opposite, and I think that the most misunderstood Member is the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne). Yesterday, he made a speech which the President of the Board of Trade quite clearly misunderstood, as did the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir).
The hon. Lady's speech was astonishing. Never in my life have I heard an hon. Member make an attack upon his or her constituents in the way that the hon. Lady did today. I am sorry that she is not here. What she said is pertinent to my argument. She attacked her constituents for lack of enterprise and efficiency, and she based her speech on that argument, whereas the hon. Member for Govan made it quite clear that, having


gone out of his way to find out the conditions under which industry would come to Peterhead and Buckie, he was of the opinion that, irrespective of the good things the President told us about Scotsmen, what is lacking is the necessary enterprise on the part of our own Scottish industrialists.
I must compliment the hon. Lady in getting out her hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) at seven o'clock in the morning. She must have been up very early too, when she paid her call on the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. I understood that there was a scheme for the allocation of steel, but it may be that the hon. Lady has been able to overcome that. If I make an application to the Civil Lord I shall have to dress in a kilt. It is obvious that I could not go in a skirt.
In my own constituency, in the Vale of Leven, we have the Strathleven Estate, an industrial estate which was brought to this area and which has been of great assistance. Two of its factories have now been extended, but there is still a great area which can be developed. I should like to know what is the attitude of the Secretary of State or the Board of Trade towards further development in that industrial estate, which has all the necessary facilities.
The President of the Board of Trade said today that we had solved our balance of trade problems and various other things, but we have done so in my constituency at some expense. One of the first things that happened was that unemployment occurred in the Vale of Leven, particularly in the United Turkey Red Company, which is the biggest dyeing firm in the whole of Britain. Even Lancashire has not got a firm of that size.
I should like to take hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench opposite on a motor coach tour of my constituency, round the three lochs. I am sorry that no representative from the Ministry of Transport is here. There has not been one during the whole of the debate, although the question of transport has been mentioned fairly frequently. This tour of the three lochs is probably the most popular motor coach tour in Scotland, but the condition of the road round Loch Lomond is a scandal. It is very narrow and very dangerous. It is

just the same round Arrochar, down to Loch Long and over to the Gare Loch.
We have the lovely Loch Lomond, which is known throughout the world as one of the attractions of Scotland, and we have a road which, quite candidly, causes anyone who is driving along it to miss the beauties of the loch. Sometimes it is shaded with trees, the driver certainly cannot take his eyes off the road, and most of the people with him are so excited about the dangerous nature of the road that they cannot possibly appreciate the beauty of the loch. We ought to do something about the roads around Loch Lomond, and in the area right round to Gare Loch.
Having got to Gare Loch, I would put this to the Government: Here is an area in which the Government took advantage during the war. We have the Navy there, and they are very welcome. We have the Army, who have some very unsightly buildings on the shores of the Gare Loch. Along came the Post Office, and they, too, put up some buildings. As the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State know, other developments are due to take place in this area.
Here, in the Gare Loch, on the west coast of Scotland, we have a fine port in which deep sea vessels can be berthed. If we are to develop that area, let us say so. Let the Secretary of State, who is in charge of town planning and of so many other things, get down to the question of what is to happen there, because what has been happening has been piecemeal development which is making the place very ugly indeed. It is natural that the inhabitants around that lovely district are worried about what is to happen. It is true that we could have greater development in the Vale of Leven. It is true that we could develop the Gare Loch as a deep sea port and could have a route into the Vale of Leven to go to Stirling, in the north, without touching Glasgow at all. That may be the future of the Gare Loch. I do not know. What we cannot have is this piecemeal development which is making the district so ugly and causing the inhabitants so much worry.
The Government must make up their minds. Either they must say that we will retain this place because of its beauty and use it as a place to which people can go to see its beauty—use it for the tourist industry; or they must say that it will


be used for the development of a deep sea port. The Government must make up their minds and take some action so that the inhabitants know what is to happen.
I want to try to create a record by making the shortest speech in the debate, because if all those who wish to speak are to be fortunate enough to do so we must keep our speeches short. I therefore confine mine to this point about the Gare Loch. I hope that the Government will be willing to do something about it

6.53 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) in seeking to make a short speech, for I know that a considerable number of my fellow countrymen also wish to speak. It is true that the Votes put down for discussion today allow us to range over a very wide field, covering the whole of the White Paper on Industry and Employment in Scotland, but I intend to confine my remarks to two practical matters under Part III of the Report—that which is appropriately headed "Basic Services" and which deals, in the first place, with transport and communications and, later, with electricity.
Although I represent one of the divisions of Edinburgh, I know the North very well indeed, and I welcome most wholeheartedly the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday about the expenditure of a further £1 million during the next three years on the improvement of roads in the northern part of the country.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) referred to a traffic problem when he mentioned the Clyde tunnel, and I realise that there is a very serious traffic congestion problem in Glasgow, but some of my colleagues in the east of Scotland will agree with me when I say we also have an acute traffic problem across the Firth of Forth at present. It is referred to briefly and indirectly in paragraph 254 of the White Paper.
To put it mildly, the bottlenecks which develop at the Queensferry passage at present are very disturbing. I believe that the only thoroughly effective solution is the construction of a road bridge at

Queensferry, whether it be built from funds from public sources or funds raised privately. I have held that view for many years and spoken of it here on many occasions, for example, during the passage of the Trunk Roads Act, 1946, and on the Adjournment last November.
I have no need to argue the case for the bridge, which has been put forward on very many occasions. On broad economic grounds it can be said that if it were there it would help very much in developing trade and industry in Fife and the Lothians and, indeed, over a wide field of Scotland. It would also be of considerable strategic value to the country.
Since this matter was last discussed in the House, there have been two important conferences, one in London and one in Edinburgh, between Ministers, Scottish Members, local authority representatives and members of the Forth Road Bridge Joint Committee. The various facts and figures have been discussed at those conferences. Frankly, I am disappointed that it has not yet been possible for the Government to indicate when the constructional work will start, particularly as the expenditure estimated for the first three or four years is relatively small.
Listening to those discussions on the statistics of potential traffic which might use the bridge, it seems to me that there is a considerable difference between the figures put forward by the promoters of the road bridge project, on the one hand, and those put forward by the Ministry of Transport, on the other hand. I suggest to my right hon. Friend—and I think it is an entirely reasonable suggestion—that there should be a further examination of these figures. I feel sure that if this matter is put to the Minister of Trans port he will have another look at it, because the Government must appreciate, as other hon. Members have said, that there is considerable feeling on the subject in Scotland. It is essential that all the evidence and statistics should be carefully checked.
The problem of the bridge is not our only worry because even if, happily, building could be started forthwith, I understand that it would be some eight to ten years before the bridge could be opened for traffic. That is a very long time to wait, from the road transport point of view, and, meanwhile, there is


great and growing congestion on both sides of the Queensferry. Those who are interested in the matter know that since the closure of the Granton-Burntisland ferry, just before Christmas, that congestion has been aggravated, because a number of heavy vehicles which were in the habit of using that Granton-Burntisland ferry are being diverted to Queensferry. The presence of these heavy vehicles has prevented a great many lighter vehicles from going over in the ships which ply between North and South Queensferry.
There are some people who doubt the wisdom of improving the ferry service and feel that by doing so we may delay the building of the bridge. I have thought about this carefully, but I believe that it is a risk which must be accepted, because it is important that we should get a greater freedom of traffic between the two sides of the Forth estuary. I hope that when the President of the Board of Trade visits Scotland next month he will adopt your suggestion. Major Anstruther-Gray, and try to cross the ferry at the peak period. I observe from his itinerary that he is likely to be crossing on 11th August. I hope he will choose to cross between 5 and 6 p.m. If he does, his experience will bear out my contention that something must be done to improve that service. I am not altogether pessimistic about this improvement, because I notice from the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport to a Question last week that the British Transport Commission have been asked to prepare final estimates for the improvement of the Queensferry.
I would add one word on this point to the Minister of Transport, and perhaps the Under-Secretary will pass this on to him. I hope that the Minister will not hesitate to prod the British Transport Commission, in making them do their job and improve this ferry service, because I have a feeling, which is based on some personal correspondence—

Mr. Woodburn: On a point of order. It seems that a great deal of this debate affects the Vote of the Minister of Transport. It is down on the Order Paper. So far, I think, we have not had the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary present, which seems to be a great discourtesy to the Committee.

The Temporary Chairman: I do not think that that affects the Chair. The Ministry of Transport Vote is on the Paper. Therefore, it is in order to discuss it.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: In fairness to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, and in answer to the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), I would point out that the Parliamentary Secretary was present for a period. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Yesterday. Anyhow, the information can be passed on to him. He has taken some steps about this, and I am merely hoping that he will prod the British Transport Commission about it. Recently, I have had some correspondence on this subject, and I feel that there is some inertia which must be overcome. I think that useful improvements can be made at a relatively small cost, at something like £500,000, judging by some plans which I have seen. I would reiterate that a better ferry service will not be much of a substitute for a bridge, but it will at least be what we call in Scotland a "pit by."
I turn to the other matter to which I referred at the beginning of my speech, and that is electricity, and in particular, the supply of electricity to industrial consumers in South-East Scotland. The Vote of the Minister of Fuel and Power is down for discussion today and the Parliamentary Secretary was here not long ago. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister, and also that of the Minister of Labour and the attention of the Secretary of State, to a most unfortunate development which appears to be taking place in the South-Eastern area, and one which is likely to have a disturbing effect on production and employment in the Edinburgh, Lothians and the Border district.
The South-East Scotland Electricity Board recently introduced a new commercial tariff for the supply of electricity to industrial firms, and this has led in a number of cases to very heavy increases in the charges. In the case of one firm, of which I have been given particulars that have been verified with the Board, these charges amount to an increase of 120 per cent., while another firm informs me that the increased charges will probably lead to the closure of part of their works—this is an engineering business—with a consequent increase in unemployment.
I shall not develop this matter any further tonight, because I am in correspondence with various Ministries and with the Electricity Board about it, but it is a very serious matter and one of which we should take notice when we are discussing the whole subject of industry and employment in Scotland. Indeed, I say that it emphasises very much the wisdom of the policy of the party to which I belong, which is that the generation and the distribution of electricity in the Lowlands as well as in the North should come under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who can then keep a watchful eye on all developments. I therefore end by saying that I hope that the reference to this matter in the Gracious Speech will be translated into legislative action next Session.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I, too, propose to be short, and so, if he will excuse me, I shall not follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison), though I know, Major Anstruther-Gray, that this question of transport across the Forth must be one very dear to your heart. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the happy view which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) takes of the Scottish Office. The appointment of a Minister of State for Scotland and an extra Under-Secretary of State has not gone near satisfying the demand in Scotland for special attention to our problems, and for powers to tackle them ourselves. As regards the Highlands the speeches of the Minister of State have been too optimistic. I have a great admiration for him, but I am sure that if the Government inquired even of their own supporters they would find that in the Highland areas there is wide uneasiness about the state of affairs in the far North.
It has been said that the Secretary of State has come forward with a promise of £3 million for Scotland, but I do not think that that is a very large amount considering that very little has been provided during the last few years, and certainly, compared with the amount we have been prepared to spend in London on the Coronation, and the £140,000 spent on Lancaster House for re-decoration, it is not a large amount at all. It is said that

we get our fair share of transport grants, but when the figures are argued it turns out that we only get them because the three major improvements in England are deducted from the computation before it is made.
There were two things announced yesterday. There was the announcement that there is to be a plant for the processing of peat at Altnabreac. I must say that the Secretary of State might have been a little more cheerful about that. When he began his announcement I thought there had been another national disaster. In point of fact, I think it is very encouraging for the Highlands. It may have a direct effect only locally, but nevertheless I think everybody in the Highlands will rejoice that something is going to be done, and I think it will give a great deal of satisfaction and encouragement all over the Highland area.
Then there is some assistance for roads. What is proposed, as far as it goes, I heartily welcome. It is something. But I do not think it goes very far, by contrast with what is needed in the Highlands to give us a decent road system. There are certain questions I would ask about this. I should like to know if this £1 million is in addition to the £750,000 promised by the late Labour Government, the balance of which is still unexpended. Are we to take it that we get the balance of that sum as well? Secondly, is this new sum in addition to the normal routine grants? Thirdly, is it in addition to the Crofter County scheme agreed before the war? I should like confirmation on all these points, and some information whether it is for the repair of roads or the reconstruction of roads, or what it is for. Is it, for instance, available for by-roads, which are most important in the Highland area?
Apart from this, the Government are still relying on committees and legislation that date from the time of their predecessors. I do not think that in their tenure of office they have given us any new development so far as the Highlands are concerned. Some of this old legislation, in my view, has been good, and some not so good, and some has failed. I do urge the Government to look at this legislation to see if it meets the special needs of the Highland area, and, after two years' experience, to try to bring it up to date. The Scottish Office cannot


be satisfied with the present state of affairs in face of the continuing unemployment and depopulation in the North. There are many special problms which must be tackled. There is the question of freights. Some very pointed questions were asked by the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen South (Lady Tweedsmuir). Some excellent suggestions have been made to the Government by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Renfrew, West. Are the Government going to carry through these improvements? Up to now, when questions have been asked, we have usually got the answer that we must wait until the British Transport Commission have drawn up their plans, but I do not think that that is necessary.
At the moment the Government are subsidising shipping services in the Western Isles, and there are areas, such as my own constituency, for instance, which cannot be affected by any scheme drawn up by the British Transport Commission. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the question of freight charges is a national social question, and it is not fair to leave all these decisions to the transport authorities. It is a matter upon which the Government must make up their mind whether or not it is worth while helping those areas. Unless we get help we are not going to be able to develop our fishing or our agriculture or attract industry. This is at the root of the whole matter.
Then take the question of land development, which was recently debated.

Sir R. Boothby: The hon. Gentleman will agree that these charges should come from Exchequer grants and not be made by the railways and others.

Mr. Grimond: I quite agree. On the question of land development it is no good waiting on all subjects for the Crofters Commission. There are many questions concerning land development which will have to be decided by the Government. I want to see experiments carried out on the mixing of crofting and allied light industry to see if it will yield a decent livelihood.
In all these matters we want what I would call a touch of Tom Johnston in the Scottish Office and the welding together of private and public enterprise.

In many parts of the North of Scotland today there is a feeling that what is wanted is a coherent, well-considered policy which the Scottish Office will drive through if necessary in the teeth of other Ministers.
Let us look at fishing. The noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South put some very important questions about the state of the fishing industry in Scotland. There are many of these questions that still want an answer. I have no doubt that if the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) speaks, he will draw attention to new methods of catching. Are the Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority examining how the share fishermen can take advantage of the new methods? Are they in touch with the new development in the processing of fish and the production of oil from fish for human consumption? In my own constituency the Russians have taken to coming with a fishing fleet to the North of Shetland. I cannot get out of the Scottish Office whether they have been in touch with them and whether they know what they are catching or how they are catching fish. I do not believe that they are going there without catching something. Why cannot the Scottish Office, if necessary through the White Fish Authority, find out what they are after?
In general, if we are to get value for the money we spend in the North of Scotland we have to have a comprehensive policy which must be supervised in its execution by one ministry, and that is the Scottish Office. I agree with the President of the Board of Trade that the future of Scotland is not going to depend on his detailed regulations with regard to Development Areas, and so on. It is going to depend on wider things. But I would say to him that when it comes to individual places like Wick and Lerwick and individual areas like the Moray Firth, it is of some importance that the small manufacturers do know about the Export Credit Guarantee Scheme. It may be of great importance to Wick or Lerwick whether it is made a Development Area or not and whether adequate transport services are provided. The co-ordination of detailed assistance and its special application in various areas is a matter for the Scottish Office primarily to press on other departments of the Government. I think that it is the desire


of everyone in this debate to get behind the Scottish Office and to push them on.

The question of rural depopulation has been going on for some time. What information are we getting from other countries, such as Norway, about this? It is far better on this sort of question to look to Norway than to Lancashire, because the Highlands are more like Norway. Are we finding out what happens in the Dominions where they, too, suffer from long transport hauls?

Lastly, I would draw attention to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) who opened the debate today on the subject of Scottish trust companies. The President of the Board of Trade rightly said that we could not expect people to invest money locally today because they did not get a fair return for the risks involved. If they can channel their money through an investment trust they can spread the risk. I want to see those trusts helping local industries. But am I right in saying that the investment trusts are not allowed to raise a new ordinary capital? I think that they should be encouraged to do so and invest a proportion of their funds in Scotland. I believe that this is a useful method of encouraging savings and could be a useful form of private enterprise investment which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee want to see.

Mr. R. Brooman-White: I shall endeavour to follow the precedent of being as brief as I can. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the very wide and far-reaching issues which he has raised. I am in some difficulty because the points with which I want to deal specifically follow the ones made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) and raise the general problem of distribution of industry policy, which is a very complex subject to deal with in a short time. I can only try to be as lucid as I can, and I hope as clear as he was in his approach to this problem.
The general tenor of the debate has shown agreement on the limitations of the Government's powers in this respect and the limitations of what we can hope to achieve through distribution of industry

policy. I need not go back over the ground covered by the President of the Board of Trade in his opening remark in which he spoke of "elementary fundamentals." In particular, if there is any general trade recession it can only to a very slight degree be countered by these means. We will in the main have to rely on the ideas of Professor Keynes and the proposals of the 1944 White Paper on Employment.
The right hon. Member for Renfrew, West made an interesting suggestion that some of these measures might be applied locally and to a limited extent, in certain areas where there are pools of unemployment today. If one is going to move from the very small to the medium-sized application of such an idea the thought arises that there is still a relatively large pool of unemployment in Glasgow, and on that basis the argument for the Clyde tunnel is seen in its correct proportions against that for the Forth bridge.

Sir W. Darling: What does the hon. Member mean when he speaks of getting the Clyde tunnel in correct proportion with the Forth bridge?

Mr. Brooman-White: Seen from the western part of the country, the Clyde tunnel appears considerably more important.
On the general considerations before us the level of unemployment in Scotland is now relatively low—2·7 per cent. There are certain pools of heavier unemployment; and at the same time the general level of the new industries starting up is declining. There may have been some small improvement latterly, but in general the post-war effervescence has died down. What is the correct policy at the moment in these circumstances? The right hon. Member for Renfrew, West like myself, represents a constituency in a Development Area, but in common with him I feel that we should go a little further beyond the present policy. The prosperity of the Development Areas will in the long term be decided by the prosperity of the country as a whole, and at the moment I think that there is something to be said for even greater flexibility than was intimated in the remarks of the President of the Board of Trade.
I would not regard myself as being in any way illogical at a later stage if there


were a recurrence of industrial difficulties and I then pleaded as forcibly as I could for special consideration for the Development Areas. But I think that at the present moment we should place at least as much emphasis on tonic measures as on palliative measures. We should take steps to stimulate growth as being at least as important as steps to arrest decay. In places like Glasgow, where there are still relatively large pools of unemployment, it is clear that what can be done by way of distribution of industry at the moment is very limited indeed. We cannot seriously expect new firms to come in which will make a very appreciable reduction in unemployment. And at the same time, the work those firms may offer to certain categories of labour unemployed at present will create a complication in increasing the demand for skilled labour of which there is a shortage, and that demand may be pressed to the disadvantage of employment in the firms already operating in the area.
The Scottish Council have therefore argued, and many people agree, that there is a strong case for being specially selective in the Development Areas, at the moment and for being as encouraging as possible in the growing areas. In being specially selective, we want to stress the importance of the newest types of industry. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) mentioned Ferranti's and the special measures taken to bring a Government research centre to East Kilbride. We should concentrate attention very much on the newest types of industry, the Boffin industries, which may at the moment employ only two or three men with slide rules and a few lady typists, but which are building up a nucleus of design and technical expertese around which the industrial skills of the old areas will regroup in the future as the pattern of industry changes.
We all agree with the remark of the Secretary of State yesterday that our limited resources must not be spread too widely. But it is a question not only of not spreading the jam too thinly today as he said; it is also a matter of ensuring sufficient jam tomorrow. We must encourage the type of industry which will put more on the shelf. To put it in other

words: on 1st July the "Glasgow Herald" said:
There is still a disposition to regard the relief of unemployment as the primary, even the sole, object of Government influence in the location of industry. … It is a question whether such thinking is compatible with the strategy still being formulated to guarantee stability to Scotland in the future. The latter requires that all available resources should be devoted to broadening the range of industry and employment, and is essentially an exercise in which 'stranger' firms connected with the new science based-industries must be encouraged to settle and the established firms best fitted to take advantage of technological advance be enabled to expand.
In speaking of "all available resources" this puts it more strongly than I would have done, but I believe it is the direction in which we should be thinking and moving.
Professor Cairncross says in his Report:
Most successful businesses start small, expand where they start, and only move elsewhere in special circumstances.
That is a very cogent argument for catching them young. If we do not do so, we will fall into the same difficulties in the future as we had in the past, when we fell behind in the newer types of industrial development in the early decades of this century. The Ministry of Supply has done a great deal, and the Scottish Council has also done a great deal. I hope the Board of Trade will also use all measures at its disposal to ensure that this type of new development is carried from the laboratory into the practical field of industry at the earliest possible date to enable us to build up the cadre of new technical experience necessary for our future.
During the debate a number of practical and specific suggestions have been made. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire suggested a wider extension of Government contracts for small firms in outlying areas. The hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) spoke about financial difficulties and problems, and other hon. Members have touched on that subject. It is a most important point. I do not wish to follow the difficult and most interesting points which the hon. and learned Gentleman raised about risk capital investment companies and about the floating charge over assets, which affects agriculture as well as industry in Scotland. But to add weight to the point


I should like to quote the 1952 survey of the Clydesdale and North of Scotland Bank Limited. Quoting the chairman of the Scottish Council, the survey says:
'A great many individual companies find that the limitations on their ability to expand, or to undertake new development, are set by the amount of capital which they can find…'
The survey goes on to agree with that, and says:
To this we would venture to add one comment. Non-availability of finance, on acceptable terms, is not always sure evidence of the economic undesirability of a development project. …
In short, where is the money coming from? Various suggestions have been made about risk-bearing capital. I wish to put one more specific point to the Minister. Is there at the moment any impediment to desirable types of development; or to development in desirable areas, in this matter of the availability of finance? As I understand it Treasury guidance to the banks is, broadly speaking, "If it is export or agriculture you are in: if it is anything else you are out." I do not know how strictly that is being exercised at the moment or whether it is now having any serious deterrent effect on the type of development which we need in Scotland. If it is having such an effect, is it not time that we ended the policy?
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) yesterday made an interesting point when he spoke about differential taxation. That raises big, complicated issues, but I was interested because he spoke about the difficulties which the D scheme might impose on the new synthetic fabric "Ardil." Under the previous Government a taxation difficulty arose which resulted in a promising firm being driven out of my constituency because of the incidence of taxation on radio sets. I am not saying that in general it was not a sound tax at the time, but cannot we have more flexibility so that we do not discourage precisely these types of work on which our future rests?
To sum up my arguments, the Cairn-cross Report has pointed out that there is now a tendency for industry and population to spread more widely from the former great conglomerations. Surely that should be encouraged. And the more we can encourage such growth by natural means, rather than by the difficult and

costly expedients of new towns, so much the better.
Secondly, our development of industry policy has up to now been a defensive one. It has consisted of trying to make good our deficiencies in the industries of which we failed to capture a proper proportion for Scotland at the turn of the century and a little later. We have been endeavouring to transplant them ever since; light engineering, the aeroplane industry and so on. Up to a point, we must continue to do so. But in our transplanting endeavours we must not lose sight of the need to bed out, in their early stages, the science-based industries on which development will turn in the next half-century. If we fail to do so, we will inevitably suffer during the years ahead precisely the same difficulties and disadvantages as we have suffered in Scotland during the years which are past.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I shall do my very best to condense my 45-minute speech into 15 minutes, and less if possible, seeing that this is now the popular practice. My only regret is that the fashion was not introduced again yesterday, when the debate started.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I introduced it, but nobody followed suit.

Mr. Rankin: I had the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in mind when making that reference. I noted that his speech was chiefly confined to constituency points, on one of which I should like to dwell later for a few moments.
I should like, first of all, to say how much I agreed with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) when he said that the Secretary of State, in his speech yesterday, was far too complacent. When reporting to the Committee the right hon. Gentleman stated that conditions in Scotland had definitely improved during the period dealt with by the White Paper on Industry and Employment in Scotland. Today, the President of the Board of Trade told us what I am certain we all had in mind, that Scotland was part of the United Kingdom economy. When the Secretary of State spoke yesterday I am sure that he was well aware of that fact.
During the year that the White Paper covers stocks in the United Kingdom at retail, wholesale and manufacturing levels


have been run down by £400 million. Consumption has decreased by 4 per cent., retail prices have increased by 5 per cent. though, admittedly, wages have gone up. I think 2·3 per cent. is the actual increase for the period, but the increase is not in keeping with the average rise in the cost of living. While wages have increased by 2·3 per cent., hours of employment throughout the whole of the United Kingdom have tended to decrease, with the result that earnings have declined in the same period.
Those are the facts of the situation, and it is very difficult to understand why Scotland should have escaped the general decline in the standard of living over the rest of the country. Of coure, that is part and parcel of the price we have to pay for the enormous re-armament programme that we are carrying, a programme which has forced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pass part of the cost on to the housewives of the country by cutting the food subsidies. The result of that has been that almost every article of consumption that enters into the domestic budget has gone up most seriously in price. Bread, butter, sugar, bacon, tea, and coffee—the cost of every one of these items has risen drastically in the year though the Secretary of State tells us that things are better in Scotland. Clearly, age of miracles has not ceased, if Scotland has escaped the cataclysm that is sweeping the rest of the United Kingdom—

Mr. John MacLeod: rose—

Mr. Rankin: It is most unfair. I do not mind giving way, but I am under an obligation to speak for a limited time and if I give way to interruptions it will take up more of my time.
I should like to have followed that economic aspect a little more closely. I notice that one of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State is not here, which perhaps is as well for he has a double load of sin in these matters, but I had better not prosecute that any further in case I prolong my speech more than I mean to. I propose to follow what has become a sort of custom in these debates, which. I think, an impartial observer

would say has not been parochial. It has covered an immense field, but, naturally and properly, hon. Members have devoted a good deal of their speeches to those problems that closely concern their own areas. I will leave the wider fields and return to three matters, two of which closely affect my own constituency.
The first is the Clyde Tunnel which has been referred to by various speakers, and which was dealt with at some length by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove and I want to support what he said and briefly to emphasise it. No doubt he recollects the Adjournment debate which I initiated two years ago, and in which he was able to say a word or two. We all know that this project was initiated over five years ago and that everybody agreed with it. When my own party were in power they said that it was necessary, and the Government today say it is necessary. The trading interests, the people of local consequence and the citizens of Glasgow generally, agree that the Linthouse tunnel is an absolute necessity for the City of Glasgow, not merely from the point of view of convenience but from the point of view of the proper development of the city.
The traffic streams to the east right through the narrow, congested streets of my division up to George V bridge, along six miles of waterfront, across George V bridge and then down another six miles of waterfront through the division of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove. These streets are narrow and one of them in particular, Paisley Road, West, has been a death trap for years. Many people have paid with their lives for the lack of a bridge further west on the River Clyde than the George V bridge.
Only four bridges span the river in the City of Glasgow, and once George V bridge is left there is no other way of crossing the river than by out-moded ferries. Last Sunday afternoon I went to cross the Clyde at Erskine ferry. There was a line of 40 other cars waiting to cross before me. We discovered that we need to wait there for 40 minutes before we could get across to continue our journey. We therefore press for the Linthouse Tunnel to ease this congestion. Because of the debate which I initiated in March, 1951, and the pressure that was applied


later, the Government allowed this Corporation to go ahead with the preliminary work, which was to cost £76,000. I understand that this work has been completed.
What is to happen now? When the tunnel was first decided upon the cost was £2,500,000. Can we be told what the cost is now, and can we be given the assurance that Glasgow will get that most necessary adjunct to her well-being? Remember that all the time consumed by these industrial vehicles in crossing the river is time wasted and adds to the costs of those commodities which we are seeking to lower at the present time.
My next point concerns Prestwick, a matter which I have been urging from time to time by Questions in the House and on which I have spoken in years gone by. In 1947, we designated Prestwick as an international airport, second only to London. When is that to materialise? Prestwick cannot function as an international airport until it is able to take, in all weathers, every machine scheduled to land there, and it cannot do that now. With only two runways, lacking the third essential runway which would give Prestwick its international status, the Stratocruisers, the Constellations—all these great four-engined machines—cannot land at Prestwick in a cross-wind of more than 25 knots.
As the hon. Member for Woodside (Mr. W. G. Bennett) will recollect, when we sometimes leave here to fly home to Prestwick we discover, at the last moment, that the flight has been put off, and we are left stranded at the terminal because the wind is blowing over 25 knots; the aircraft goes via Shannon, and nobody can travel to Prestwick that evening. I know I have at least one supporter on the other side of the Committee, so I ask the Minister to tell us what is to be the future of Prestwick.
My third and last point deals with a matter of intimate concern to me as the representative of Tradeston division, namely, the shipbuilding cancellations on the Clyde. I raised this last week with the Admiralty when I had a Question down and, frankly, I think there is too much complacency with regard to those cancellations. According to my information, since the beginning of this year two-thirds of the new orders booked by Clyde shipyards have been cancelled. In

addition, there has been a reduction in new orders. During June there were four cancellations on the Clyde alone and seven in the whole of Scotland. The financial loss to the Clyde was nearly £3 million.
The significant factor here is that all these were cargo ships, and 45 per cent. of the work now on hand in the Clyde is for tankers. The cancellation of the cargo ships is significant because of the amount of finishing work that goes into them, whereas there is practically no finishing work on a tanker. My division is crowded with a host of small employers, as is the division of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne) These are the men whom, we have been told, the Government want to encourage, the ships' chandlers, and all those others who thrive on a prosperous shipbuilding industry.
These are the people who step in to do the finishing work when the structural part of the ship has been completed. The loss of these vessels is important to people in my part of the city, because it means so much to those who are engaged in the finishing trades. In the first six months of this year only 10 ships, totalling 50,000 tons, were booked as orders. That compares badly with the corresponding period of 1952, when there were orders for 57 ships totalling 500,000 tons. So far, on Clydeside 33,700 tons of shipping have been cancelled.
It was pointed out yesterday and again today that the large shipbuilders are not feeling the draught so much as the small ones. I am told that in their desire to keep going the big shipbuilders have been prepared to lose money in getting orders. I am informed that John Brown have dropped £150,000 on the "Caronia." I do not know whether there will be a great deal of sympathy for John Brown, because they lined their pockets well from 1939 to 1945. Although we respect their effort to get ships to build on the Clyde, if anyone can afford to drop £150,000 it is John Brown.
I hope I have kept the promise I made at the beginning of my speech. We are all anxious about industry and employment in our native land and about Scotland's well-being. Her well-being depends on the well-being of her people, and the well-being of her people depends on employment, and a proper dignity for labour.


It is our business to make sure that this dignity is secured for them and that never again will Clydeside go back to the years that Clydeside still dreads.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. H. R. Spence: I shall confine what I have to say to the problems of the North-East and I am sure that the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) will forgive me if I do not follow the arguments he put before the Committee.
I should like, first, to ask a question which is really one for the President of the Board of Trade, so I hope that a note will be taken of it. We have been told that the Buckie—Peterhead area is to some extent regarded as a Development Area. I should like to know whether that enjoys all the benefits of a Development Area or only as fat as the building of new factories is concerned? It is a most intractable area. I spent nearly all my Easter Recess interviewing over 200 unemployed persons in the various towns and villages there, so I speak with personal knowledge of the problems which have to be faced in starting up industry there. At the same time, I disclose to the Committee my personal interest in a large number of industries in the North-East.
When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour spoke in the debate last night he said, speaking of Peterhead and Buckie, that he was afraid that their main enemy was geography. That is partly true, but our main enemy in the Development Areas in the North-East is the high cost of transport, which not only affects the question of development in the North-East; it is a menace to the existence of many industries that have long been established in that area and which are finding it increasingly difficult to carry on under the heavier charges which must be borne in bringing the raw materials to the factories and taking the finished products to the markets of the South.
I feel that if the Government are in earnest about the question of reducing unemployment and of encouraging new and fresh employment in the North-East they must now decide that by some means the transport charges to and from the North must be reduced. If we do not do that we are only toying with the whole question of relieving unemployment and

creating new employment. I speak from personal knowledge of the problems which industry is facing, and it is essential, in my view that some reduction should be made at once.
I turn, next, to the question of encouraging industry into the Buckie—Peterhead area. In that respect, as has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, the main enemy is geography, but there are other difficulties, too. There are the heavy transport charges, to which I have referred. The labour force that is available is entirely untrained, and will have to be broken in from scratch. Most of the people I interviewed during my trip through those towns have no experience of the routine, discipline and regularity of factory work.
There is in the North-East the problem of the servicing of machinery by representatives of the builders. Much of the modern machinery used in industry is serviced by special mechanics who come from the builders. In a remote area the expense and difficulty of getting immediate service is great. Unless the Government have really decided that they will make it attractive for new industry to go into that area they should scrap the idea and tell those people now that they are to be abandoned. It is wrong to lead them up the garden and make them expect something which will never happen.
I turn to another question of development. I believe it to be the feeling of the whole Committee that for the North of Scotland—the North-East in particular—development should come from Scottish industry and should be based upon some type of industry which is inherent or natural to that part of the country. If we try to graft an industrial excrescence, unrelated to its background, on to the North-East, it will probably not work. So I make the suggestion that it is to local industries that we can look for most help. Therefore, when a survey is made of the North-East—I noticed that Lord Bilsland was there last week—I hope that we shall arrange to see not only the firms in these local towns and villages, but also those further inland which might be brought into the picture.
The next thing to do is to find what firms there are which can produce more goods, and find a market for them, and,


having done that, then, by discussions on the spot, to find out how best to mop up the pockets of unemployment by increasing output. We may have to use unorthodox methods and do slightly unusual things. I should like to pay a tribute to the Joint Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson Stewart) and his officials in all Departments, who have been most helpful in supporting and carrying out an experiment in providing employment for the Buckie—Peterhead area with which I am personally connected. It has been going on for two months and has so far been successful. It may lead to something more.
The other development that I feel can come to the North-East, apart from local industries, is a new project related to what goes on in the North-East. That is surely the production of food. It is now settled policy that the encouragement of meat production is to be accepted as a part of our programme for years to come. It is agreed by the House of Commons and the nation that more meat must be produced. As more meat becomes available so the problem of distributing our meat over the year becomes more difficult. The flush period for killing is confined to a few months of the year. The question will arise, therefore, of how to spread the meat over the months so as to give variety. That is one of the headaches now being faced by the Minister of Food.
The answer is perfectly simple; it is, by refrigeration. I suggest that instead of building in the North-East an arms factory or a project to do with the defence programme we should build a really big refrigeration plant with the necessary equipment for by-products, etc. It will be one of many; there will be others in other parts of the country. It might deal with fish as well as with meat.
Refrigeration is a necessary part of our long-term food production programme, and we may as well start now by laying down the first plant. I suggest that the North-East, which produces more meat for its area than any other part of the country—and the best meat—should be the first place in which to build such a plant. I suggest that the Government should give careful consideration to this proposal because it is a project that will be needed by the country, it will be

strategically sound for the country to have it, and it will provide long-term employment for quite a number of people.
I have promised to be very brief. Before I knew the scope of this debate I unwisely asked for quite a lot of time; I had a lot to say. As time has gone on my suggested demands have become more modest, and I see that my time is up. I will merely urge the Government once again to think over their North-East development programme and make up their minds whether they can go on with it and make it attractive for industry to go into the Buckie-Peterhead area; and if they find that it cannot be done and made attractive then they should say so in order that we may know where we are. I believe that industry can be attracted there if the right means are used. I hope that the Secretary of State and his officers and officials of the other Ministries will be as successful in doing that as they seem to have been in the small experiment which I have seen carried out.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Oswald: I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not follow the line of argument which has been followed by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence). Having read Cmd. 8797 on Industry and Employment in Scotland I wish only to mention certain specific points, having regard to the fact that the pace has been set by some of my colleagues who have preceded me in their endeavours to cut down their contributions to occupy as small an amount of time as possible in order to enable other hon. Members to make their contributions.
It has been my privilege to be interested in Scottish industrial problems over several years with special reference to certain industries and the industrial establishments closely allied to those industries. It is noted in the Report that production in the Scottish chemical industry was lower than last year and that the recession was expected to be of a somewhat temporary character. Attention was drawn to the continued expansion of productive capacity of this industry and that considerable new factory space was under construction. Many of the firms manufacturing drugs and fine


chemicals, as well as pharmaceutical products are now proceeding with some of these extensions.
Over a number of years concern has been shown by both sides of the industry —employers and trade union members —in that section of the chemical industry which is employed in the compounding of fertilisers. Much of these fertilisers are used for agricultural purposes and the concern of both sides of the industry over the years has been that the trade in Scotland has been mainly seasonal owing to the fact that storage space has been at a minimum. The farming community have still to be persuaded to provide storage space on the farms in order to enable continuity of production for 12 months in the year.
The Command Paper states that new buildings are being erected to increase space for these fertilisers, but it distinctly says that they are being produced out of season. I think I can appreciate this. Surely it is reasonable to suggest that such factory space could best be utilised for manufacturing purposes if the farmers themselves would make provision for all the year round storage instead of making a tremendous demand from time to time for delivery all in one specified month when in Scotland every farmer is demanding delivery of these fertilisers.
If there were continuity of production in the industry it would enable those engaged in it to create a much better plan. I see the Secretary of State for Scotland in his place. With all his remarkable powers of persuasion—if not of directive, or direction—he might approach the Scottish farmers through their association to look seriously at this suggestion and enable fertiliser manufacturers to have the opportunity of meeting farmers' demands and requirements throughout the whole of the year. It is my belief that the needs of the farmer could be met by deliveries extending over a longer period than obtains at the moment and there should not be frantic calls on the processors to deliver at a specified time when all the farmers tending the land are making demands at the same time.
Another aspect of the chemical and allied industries in Scotland is the extension of the propellant and explosives

group. The factories in Scotland have certainly done a remarkable job. I express the wish that in the not too distant future this great industry will be enabled to devote the whole of its production to industrial purposes rather than for defence or war potential stockpiling.
A greater tonnage output of explosives could be used to enable us to secure more coal or to bring down much more stone from Scottish quarries and enable us to build the type of traditional houses we expect in Scotland. Much of that explosive production could be used for bringing down stone and granite in all parts of Scotland, not only for buildings but for new roads all over the country. It would be of much greater value if the potential of explosives were used for that purpose rather than that of destruction.
It is with some satisfaction that I note the completion of the new factory producing synthetic fibres at Dumfries, which was mentioned in yesterday's debate. That is a monument to the scientific development of Scottish scientists. The manufacture of this new product has the trade name "Ardil." I sincerely hope that no one will think I am sponsoring Imperial Chemical Industries, but I merely wish to draw attention to the fact that there has been an important forward step in the manufacture of synthetic fibres in Scotland.
Probably it is known in Government circles that, arising from the shortage of gun cotton at the outset of the war, when America was making a demand for all its own production of raw cotton, Imperial Chemical Industries sought to produce a substitute for cordite and produced this new fibre. It not only played its part in winning the war, but has also brought an entirely new industry to Scotland and one which will prove a very valuable commodity. It is now becoming available to the textile industry in Scotland and ultimately will save a considerable number of dollars for this country.
Another part of the Report is extremely interesting. It is stated that reconstruction schemes of the British Aluminium Company at Kinlochleven and Fort William are nearing completion. I trust that I am not trespassing on the preserves of the hon. Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton) and the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) who, unfortunately, has just


left his place after being in the Chamber most of the day. Schemes for further reconstruction have been approved and should increase production.
While welcoming that information, I have regard to the fact that practically the whole of the communities in Kinlochleven, Fort William and Inverlochy adjacent to Lochaber are concerned with the production of aluminium. I notice in another part of the Report that there has been a considerable decrease in the tonnage of raw bauxite which is processed at Burntisland before being shipped to the Highland reduction works to become fluid aluminium and subsequently to ingot aluminium. If there is a falling off in the importation of bauxite we might find this Scottish industry will be in the doldrums.
I should like to know whether the original establishment of the British Aluminium Company at Foyers, above Loch Ness, is to be kept in production, because, again, the whole of the community at Foyers is dependent for its livelihood on the manufacture of aluminium. I think that the workpeople in that area are entitled to know what the future holds for them and their families in this somewhat remote Highland community.
I noted with interest that in announcing his itinerary yesterday, the President of the Board of Trade said that he intended to visit the Lochaber establishment and the aluminium works there. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place at the moment, but perhaps the suggestion could be conveyed to him that when, on 5th August, he leaves for Inverness he should visit the business establishments at Foyers to see what can be done to keep this very valuable community together.
I now come a little nearer home. The question of printing and book-binding is again causing me some concern. The City of Edinburgh, of which I am privileged to be one of its Members, is world famous for its book-binding and printing. I am informed, however, that at the moment there is a considerable falling-off of orders, due in no small measure to the Australian Government's restriction of imports.
Supplies of paper and board have improved, but without orders this industry will be in a very poor state indeed. Many

industrial concerns are no longer placing orders or repeating former orders, many of them of long years' standing. As a consequence, men and machinery are not working to capacity in the industry at the moment. Considerable capital expenditure is involved for extensions and buildings, and new machinery has recently been installed.
The industry is handicapped while awaiting fresh orders, and I suggest to the Government Front Bench—and probably they will convey this information to their right hon. Friend's in the Cabinet—that if they require any publications to be printed speedily and well they can do no better than invite the many Edinburgh publishing and printing houses to fulfil their requirements.
One other industry—and this brings me, in particular, to my own constituency —is having a lean time at present. I refer to the North British Rubber Co. which played, as did the Aluminium Co. and Imperial Chemical Industries, an extremely valuable and important part during the war years. But in recent months their tenders for Government contracts have not been accepted, and, as a result, redundancy, which is the new term for unemployment, has been rampant in that industrial establishment.
One thing that is worrying management and work people alike is the fact that they are in the invidious and ridiculous position of having, over many years, trained personnel to become expert in their job and now all that skill is being lost and wasted because the men and women concerned are having to seek employment in other industries and to learn from the beginning once again. I say to the Government that if we are to keep these industries working to capacity and if the national cry is to be greater productivity then we must give industrial establishments and the people who earn their livelihood in them the opportunity to produce. That cannot be done unless orders are placed with them.
I noticed with great interest the report on the industrial development of Grangemouth. As a trade union official who in the past had to deal with many of the industrial problems in that area, it gives me much satisfaction to see that today it is really beginning to find its vital place


in the Scottish community. This community is steadily thriving, and the number of new developments there is to be commended.
I mention this because I want to draw to the attention of the Government Front Bench the need for similar expansion at the port of Leith, a matter which was brought out very strongly in the speech of my colleague, friend and next-door-neighbour the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy). I wish to stress that unless something is done soon, there is a grave danger of this important port deteriorating. It is true, as was mentioned by the Secretary of State, that an extension of the docks is under way, but it is more than ever necessary that the Government should take immediate steps to induce industrial concerns to avail themselves of the facilities in this area.
Plans have been prepared for new factories to be erected on ground which formerly held dwelling-houses, and which is still standing derelict. Leith is the seaport town for the capital of Scotland. While I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend, that Leith is looked upon as a special area, the fact is that it is the channel through which much of the imports and exports from the Edinburgh area, the Lothians and the Border areas pass to the port of Leith.
Therefore, much better use ought to be made of this port. It is the largest port between the Firth of Forth and the River Tyne. It serves all the Lothians and the eastern Border counties. It supplies the facilities for all forms of cargo, as in the past, but as was stated in the Report, there has been a recession in the amount of tonnage handled in recent years.
The whole of the dock area lends itself to industrial projects. In passing, I would mention the naval dockyard at Rosyth, although I think that something should be done for the port of Leith and done at an early date. Again, I have a vested interest in the important naval establishment at Rosyth because I used to have to negotiate the wages of the people employed there. This naval establishment always suffers when a trade recession hits Scotland, and on many occasions it has been placed on a care-and-maintenance basis.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): I think that the hon. Member is getting beyond the Vote. The port of Rosyth comes under the Navy Vote.

Mr. Oswald: I hope I am in order in making this point, Mr. Hynd, because a very large number of skilled workpeople employed in the shipyards and engineering establishments come from the Edinburgh area and to this day travel by workman's train over the Forth bridge to work and back again when their work is done. We are extremely interested in seeing that this establishment is kept running to capacity. Otherwise, we again shall have very valuable shipbuilding, ship-repairing and other craftsmen thrown upon the industrial scrapheap.
It is gratifying to note that the Scottish Omnibuses group of companies have further increased their mileage by 2 per cent., that additional long distance services have been introduced, and that important express services have been inaugurated. In addition, new and extended services are now running in the new housing areas and additional services have been created where branch railway lines have been closed. It is a handicap to expansion to have to traverse roadways throughout Scotland which, when they were originally built, were never meant to carry the amount of traffic which is passing on them today.
I would ask the Minister—I am sorry that the Minister of Transport is not on the Front Bench, but I address myself to the Secretary of State for Scotland—if he can tell us whether the sum mentioned yesterday of an additional £1 million for the expansion of Scottish roads is a final sum. Having regard to the cost per mile of re-surfacing roads today, £1 million will not go very far in the areas which need attention most.
In present conditions of transport and road haulage in Scotland, it is imperative that much more be spent on the development of Scottish roads and branch roads running into the Highlands, to give them an opportunity of making their contribution to the development of Scotland.
I do not want to say any more, although I have a considerable number of notes and could speak for a long time. The debate has been extremely interesting as a consequence of the tremendous number of facets mentioned by hon.


Members on both sides of the Committee. The debate is a challenge to the Government to tell us precisely what their plans are for the well-being of the Scottish nation. It is strange that only when a war comes along is the great Scottish nation called upon and told that its people are the salt of the earth and the backbone of the country, but immediately peace terms are signed, and war disappears, Scotland is allowed to become a backwater.
We believe in the full employment policy, which has been in being since 1939 and, rather strangely, has only begun to deteriorate as a consequence of the election of the present Government. I say that this debate is a challenge. We ask the Government to accept the challenge and to tell us, before the night is through, precisely what their intentions are for the well-being of the Scottish nation.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Duthie: I am grateful that this debate should have been initiated and also am I grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence) for dealing with the Buckie—Peterhead area. I hope that the Committee will extend its indulgence if I deal with the same subject, because I have the great honour to have been born in the area and to represent a considerable part of it now in the House.
Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour made a statement to the effect that there were improved conditions in Buckie and Peterhead. I hope that this was a prophecy that will soon come to pass We also had an announcement on 29th October from the President of the Board of Trade, who stated that special treatment was to be given to this area to improve its employability As a prelude to that announcement we had visits from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr Henderson Stewart). The area consists of a chain of towns and villages along the Banffshire and Aberdeenshire coast. I speak with a certain degree of authority for that part of the area which lies in Banffshire.
The inland economy and the coastal economy are entirely separate. The inland

economy consists of farming, which produces the finest beef in the world, distilling, milling and a certain amount of weaving. On account of the economic position of the coastal belt a special Committee was set up under the Scottish Council of Industry, presided over by ex-Lord Provost Fraser of Aberdeen, who was an absolutely splendid chairman of a splendid Committee. The Committee's Report was the obvious reason for the announcement which was made by the President of the Board of Trade.
The difficulties faced in that area were not lessened by the storm of 31st January, when the whole coast was literally devastated and in many parts of it a new coastline was drawn. In this connection, I must mention the splendid work which was done by the Secretary of State for Scotland in coming speedily to the help of the county council and of the local councils, and I must pay tribute to the Scottish Office for the work they did in the salvaging of the fishing vessels at Ullapool, many of which came from my area. On receipt of a telegram from the North telling the Scottish Office that the job was beyond the power of the fishermen themselves, the Department obtained and co-ordinated help of the Navy, a company of Royal Engineers from the Army, and the efforts of the fishermen themselves. The result was that not a single total loss was suffered, when 16 total losses had been expected.
We have a hard core of unemployment in our coastal districts. That is due to the progressive deterioration of the herring industry. We suffered the loss of our overseas markets for cured herring after the 1914–1918 War. Then we had the passing of the steam drifter. This condition of affairs has not been uniform. We have little oases of successful little towns. Places like Whitehills, Macduff and Gardenstown have got over difficulties which have more or less submerged other places.
It may be that in Buckie and other towns the fishermen held on too long to the steam drifter hoping against hope that the herring industry would rehabilitate itself. Other parts, particularly Whitehills and Macduff went over to seine netting. Gardenstown is a most exceptional place. It has a fine herring fleet based on Fraserburgh because its own harbour is inadequate. It hung on


to the herring industry till it turned the corner. The little towns that went in for seine net fishing were able to maintain themselves, but if other ports had done likewise there would not have been enough coming in to keep them all going. The result is that we have hundreds of fishermen, fine seamen, working as casual labourers with the Hydro-Electric Board. The full force of this problem will not become apparent until the hydro-electric schemes comes to an end and these men return.
The Inshore Fishing Industry Act and the Herring Industry Act have helped to provide vessels for a considerable number of men but we still have a hard core that are shore-bound for the time being. Buckie, Findochty, Portknockie, and Portsoy have fine harbours, but they are all saddled with very heavy debts. Harbour extensions were carried out and these debts incurred in the rosy days of pre-1914. These debts still devolve in these little towns and villages and they are very hard put to it to keep going. The Fraser Committee suggested that the area should be made into a Development Area. The President of the Board of Trade, with the co-operation of the Secretary of State, decided that special treatment should be tried first to attract new industries.
Last Thursday I was present at a meeting in Buckie with Lord Bilsland and his Committee to meet Buckie Town Council representatives and representatives of industry in the coastal area of Banffshire. It became quite apparent from that meeting that the only way in which the economy of the Buckie-Peterhead area can be rehabilitated is by the revival of the fishing industry—the industry for which these very towns came into existence.
A point which I hope has been in the mind of the President of the Board of Trade is that at present Buckie can undertake no industrial development whatever; because it has no water supply. I referred to that point at the meeting last Thursday and representatives of the Scottish Office told me that no help would be forthcoming from the Distribution of Industry Act and that, therefore, if Buckie is to qualify for industrial development of any kind it must undertake a water supply scheme costing £150,000. But Buckie is

excluded from any benefit under the rural water supply scheme because it is too big, and the burgh cannot face this cost. If the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State are to carry out a development scheme in that area it is up to them to help the burgh obtain a proper water supply.
As I said, fishing must be our mainstay. If new factories are built, what have we to offer potential occupiers in competition with Development Areas farther south? Our transport rates at once put any manufacturer at a disadvantage unless he is manufacturing from our own natural resources. If he is processing fish or dealing with meat processing all is well, because he does not have the cost of bringing the raw materials into his factory. The Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority are two agencies that can really rehabilitate the economy of the Buckie-Peterhead area. The Herring Industry Board have done a great job in securing the new Russian contract. That not only inculcates new hope in the herring industry, it actually ushers in a new herring age. If we can restore to the Russians a taste for Scottish herring that taste will stay and there will be a market for our home product for years to come.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Red herring.

Mr. Duthie: Not red herring; cured herring. The Herring Industry Board have it in their power to establish Buckie, Findochty, Portknockie and Portsoy as herring curing ports. The boats will land the catches there when curing prices are paid. Most unfortunately for the Banffshire coast, the difficulty now is that the herring industry has concentrated in the main port of Fraserburgh. We want our own herring landed in our own ports and not in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby).

Sir R. Boothby: We are nearer the ground.

Mr. Duthie: If the men get a curing price in Buckie they will come to Buckie instead of going to Fraserburgh for possibly a fish-meal price.
The White Fish Authority have caused me bitter disappointment. It has not fulfilled the hopes that we held for it. A


year ago I discussed in Buckie, with the town council, and with representatives of the White Fish Authority, a scheme to bring small ports into one general marketing scheme operated by the White Fish Authority. A general constituent of such a scheme must be a flat rate whereby fish landed in various Scottish ports from Wick to Eyemouth would arrive in Birmingham, Manchester and Billingsgate at the same transport cost. It is within the power of the White Fish Authority to bring a plan of that kind into being, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will insist upon something of this kind being done by that body.
The White Fish Authority, with the help of the Secretary of State, must ensure the protection of our fishing grounds. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has already said something about catching methods, and the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. P. Johnston) has said something about new trawlers. I suggest to the hon. and learned Member for Paisley that no one at present would indulge in an investment in a new trawler considering the potentialities of the fishing grounds that are at the moment available. This international convention of which we are members must get to work quickly to ensure the preservation of the grounds. Some method of preservation must take place at the Moray Firth if our small seine net ports in the North are to maintain the little prosperity which they have at present.
There are other industries to consider. If there is anything to be said for the dispersal of industry for the safety of the nation in time of war, I would say that there is no more suitable place for aircraft production than at Boyndie aerodrome near Banff. It consists of a large fiat track by the sea. There is at present in Banff and Portsoy labour available— unskilled, it is true—which could be used to staff a place like that under expert guidance.
Again, Scapa Flow is just across the Firth. Why should we not have something in the nature of a small oil refinery in Banffshire? Our harbours can take small tankers, and it would be in keeping with the best interests of our defence to have an oil plant there. I pleaded with the Minister of Works to consider that

coast as a site for an atomic energy plant, unfortunately without success—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Anything else?

Mr. Duthie: However, a plant is being created in the Highlands somewhere. One other matter. Our beef should not leave the country on the hoof, but it should be processed before it goes.
These are a few points concerning the Buckie-Peterhead area. I say to my right hon. Friend in all seriousness that the Government having made the announcement, and that announcement having been interpreted by my constituents as the will of the Government to do something worth while for them, we in this Committee must not turn aside until the Government have fulfilled their promise.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: If the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) will forgive me, I shall follow the many good examples which have been set during the last hour or two and shall not take up what he has been saying, because I wish to keep my speech as short as possible and deal with one or two constituency matters.
I wish to touch, before doing so, on a couple of points which I shall deal with quickly. First, I wish to refer to the Digest of Scottish Statistics, with which I am extremely disappointed. It gives nothing like the amount of detail that is needed. If one compares it with the old tables of figures which it replaced in the White Papers of 1948, 1949 and thereabouts, one misses the very figures which are so useful to Members of Parliament.
I would also draw attention to the fact that, in connection with the breakdown of the working force, one-third of the total working force is contained unbroken-down under the two heads of "Distribution" and "Professional and miscellaneous services." A table of that sort is of very little use and will need to be broken down before it is of any real use.
There is a further point. We ought to have some figures relating to the capital side of Scottish industry, because a number of the questions that we have to tackle boil down, in the end, to investment policy. I appreciate that this may be a more difficult matter, but we really ought to have some information on this subject,


and I think it can be obtained. I have some doubt about the volume of the investment and of the effort that is going into those newer industries in Scotland to which so much reference is often made.
The electronics industry, for example, has had a lot of publicity. Such industries are the very kind which Scotland has needed from England to enable her to diversify her industry. In the last 12 months the electronics industry produced, in the United Kingdom, work to a value of £125 million. In Scotland, it did not produce 10 per cent. of that figure or anything like it. It produced £2 million, as against £125 million. I wonder how far that is true of the other new industries, about which we hear so much, and on which the future of Scotland very largely depends. In part, my own constituency is very closely wedded to new industries.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I thank the hon. Member for his suggestions. If he will write to us with his further suggestions we shall consider them very carefully. We should like to make the volume to which he has referred more readily available to hon. Members.

Mr. MacPherson: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am very glad of the developments in connection with the equipment at Grangemouth docks. I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) that two and a half years ago I was pleading for equipment at Grangemouth docks, just as he has been pleading for equipment in Bo'ness; the fact that I did so is not necessarily connected, as a cause, with the fact that we are now getting a very much better equipped dock; but hon. Members must do what they can in matters of that sort.
I want to add a word about the roads round Grangemouth. The district is, of course, having a far greater strain put upon its roads than in the past, before these developments took place, and the Scottish Office ought to pay a good deal of attention to the question whether they are putting enough capital into the repair and maintenance of the roads in that region.
I hope that the oil industry in Grangemouth will be a source of energy behind

the elbows of many of the workpeople in Scotland and the rest of Britain. Although this industry is a new one so far as Scotland is concerned, it is also a basic one. I shall return to that point later.
In Falkirk, there is a very bad slump in the light castings industry. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour referred to this matter yesterday, and we have discussed it previously. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire, West (Mr. Balfour) also touched on the same sort of situation yesterday. I should not like to complete this speech without adding my congratulations to those which have been offered to him, since he is a colleague of mine in the representation of Stirlingshire. I thought he made a spirited speech, full of good sense.
The Parliamentary Secretary does not hold out very much hope for a quick recovery in the light castings industry. So far, his statements have been rather depressing, and very blunt. We should be grateful to him for not having tried to smooth things over. He said that the recent improvement has been a very slight one, and that is quite true, but when one goes on to ask what the Government policy is to be there are one or two questions which must be put to the Parliamentary Secretary, in addition to those which were put to him on the previous occasion. Broadly speaking, there are two policies which we can follow in regard to the slump in the light castings industry. We can either try to revive the industry, or we can say, "The industry will die, or wither away; let us try to bring additional industry into the district."
To a certain extent, those two policies can be compatible. They are not necessarily contrary. But we want to know what is the main line of policy which the Government are to follow. Will they try to revive the fortunes of the light castings industry, or will they say, "We will forget about the light castings industry. We will do a little here and there, but we will concentrate, in the main, on diversifying industry"?
It is difficult to tell, from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said so far, where the policy line of the Government is to be drawn. On 1st May he said,


quite plainly, in regard to the local position:
… the first necessity is more diversity of industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 2604.]
On the strength of that, I have explained to the local people that that is what the Government think, that their policy is to diversify industry. Last night the hon. Gentleman took a completely different line.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Harold Watkinson): No.

Mr. MacPherson: At any rate, it seemed to me to be completely different. He said the industry must not panic, it must not disperse its labour over new industries and it must, instead, try to find new markets. It may be that he sees a unity of expression there, but it is difficult for me to find it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and I will be attending a meeting in the locality later this week; and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that efforts are being made in the locality to help to solve this problem by employers, trade unions and local authorities. It is difficult for us to go there and say that the Government have clearly stated that their policy is diversification of industry when yesterday's statement cast a great deal of doubt on that point.

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry if he misunderstood me. In the limited time I had available I could not cover every aspect, and I thought we had covered the aspect of diversification very well in the Adjournment debate. I made it plain that Her Majesty's Government want to try to give all the aid they can to the area. That means that we must look very carefully at the question, and the Government are making very great efforts to get some new industries there. We cannot tell whether that will be a long or a short process and it would be improper for me to make a guess, but what I said last night was that, while that process is going on, the local industry will make its own efforts. I said I hoped they would not panic too much, but would hang on and try to fight to get markets. I think perhaps the outlook is not quite as gloomy as the hon. Member makes it out to be.

Mr. MacPherson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and if he says the position is not as gloomy as I suggested then I put that in the setting of his fairly blunt statements and regard it as a little optimistic. He made a moderate, fair and reasonable speech last night and his intervention just now was in the same tone. I am glad to have that clarification.
I want to come to one of the possibilities for reviving the industry. If I were offered—which, of course, I am not, nor are the Government, nor the industry —the alternative between reviving the existing industry or diversifying industry, I would say, "Revive the industry." That would be my first choice and the policy which, I hope, would succeed. One of the lines of policy which can be pursued to revive the fortunes of the industry is that of modernising houses on the lines of the Stockton experiment, with which the hon. Member is familiar.
On 1st May, when we went into this in a certain amount of detail, the hon. Member agreed that the points I made about it were valid and suggested, towards the end of his own speech, that the Government ought to spend a great deal more on the reconditioning of houses. On 3rd March, however, just a little earlier, the Minister of Works had told one of my right hon. Friends that there had been a considerable decline in the amount of labour going into the repair and maintenance of houses. In the last quarter of 1951, 466,000 workers employed on this kind of work, but in the last quarter of 1952 only 408,000 were employed on it, a decline of something like one-eighth. In these circumstances, it is difficult to make Government policy square, or anything like square, with what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Member is confusing a legitimate drop on things like redecoration, which, in our view, are probably not entirely necessary, with a major scheme of slum clearance and rehabilitation, which would be a different thing. If he wants any help in his industry it must come from the second alternative.

Mr. MacPherson: It is a question of how much help. I do not find that intervention quite as frank and helpful as the hon. Gentleman's last intervention.
The amount of light castings which is used in the kind of repair and maintenance that can be done and that is worth while doing in houses that have a length of life of, say, 20 or 30 years is fairly considerable, and there is no doubt that a lot of it has been cut down by this drop in the proportion of building labour that is being put on to repair and maintenance. The labour has gone to new houses which take a smaller proportion of light castings. I must in circumstances like that, cast a little doubt on the intentions of the Government, because that sort of action does not at all square with what the hon. Gentleman has said.
I do not want to take much longer, because I have used the allotment of time hon. Members in the latter part of the debate have been allowing themselves and I want to close with one simple point. If one turns from the question of reviving industry to the question of diversifying industry in the Falkirk area I think one notices right away the paradox of the lively, new industrial centre in Grangemouth and of under-used factories in Falkirk, and it seems to me that there is a considerable possibility of marrying the two.
Lord Bilsland has recently drawn attention to the way in which the chemical industry has become the basis of the development of other industries. There may be a possibility there of Falkirk's being put on its feet. Lord Bilsland has also pointed out the possibility of developing a non-ferrous metal industry in Scotland. I suggest that this vacuum in the light castings work in Falkirk might be filled by locating non-ferrous industry there. I see the eyes of others besides mine on the clock, and I think I had better leave the matter abruptly there to allow time for other hon. Members to get into the debate before the winding-up speeches.

8.52 p.m.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: I was about to protest on a point of order, Mr. Hynd, that in two days of debate not one Member had been called representing a constituency in the Highland mainland, which is an area very nearly half the size of Scotland, with special problems of its own. Despite certain good news that the Secretary of State has told us in connection with the

Highlands, that we are to get £1 million more for roads, that as well as our share of the extra £1 million for the United Kingdom, a peat-fuelled electric generating plant is to be set up, which has immense implications and may be a tremendous help in the development of the Highlands, and that we are to get a bit more to spend on water supplies— in spite of these advantages in the basic services, the Secretary of State, bearing in mind the number of requests I have made from time to time, will not, I am sure, expect any of us who represent Highland seats to be entirely satisfied.
The development of the Highlands is a challenge which this nation, not only Scotland, but the whole United Kingdom, has to face sooner or later. De-population is going on there. We are over-populated in the industrial belt, under-populated in the remoter regions, particularly in the Highlands and Islands; and I ask for the adoption of a radical, new approach of the kind Britain has successfully used in the past to find a solution of the Highlands de-population problem, to bring once more hope and opportunity to the area, and to give our young Highlanders, men and women, the chance of making something more of their own country.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said that we were once a million Scots and now we are five million. We are many more millions than that, but the bulk of the Scots are all over the world, and that is the greatest contribution Scotland has made to the world; but we have done a bad job by our own country in the process, and it is time now that we got on with making a better job of it, and with giving to our young men an opportunity of work and remunerative employment in Scotland.
The open spaces of the Highlands which have hitherto been undeveloped give a responsibility and an opportunity, but a pastoral economy is not going to hold the Highland population. We must have industries. I submit that the best brains that the United Kingdom can produce should be mobilised to deal with the Highland problem.
There are various ways in which the Government can help. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Wood-burn) was responsible for the establishment of a Development Area near


Inverness. Since then no industry has come there. It is not enough just to try and attract industry; we have to go out and virtually dig for it.
There is another way in which the Secretary of State can help industry, and that is through the Town and Country Planning Act. I am not quite clear what are the different advantages an industrialist gets in practice through the Distribution of Industry Act or the Town and Country Planning Act, but it is clear he gets considerable advantage under both. I should like to see established in the North of Scotland an industrial planning board which would get to work to enlist potential industries and businesses based on national resources, and importune industrialists until they do come to this area, so that we can get our share of industry in the North of Scotland.
We produce the hydro-electric power there, it is increasing year after year, but when ultimately developed it will not be more than 5 to 7 per cent. I submit that the Highland area should carry at least 5 per cent. of the industrial capacity of Britain. We should speedily aim at that. It is nothing like that at the moment.
Several hon. Members have spoken about the burden of freight charges, and I ask the Government to go into this matter of freight charges and tackle it, because we cannot get industrial development in the North of Scotland until this very important problem is dealt with. I trust that my hon. Friend when he replies will say something about development in the North of Scotland.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: When the Opposition announced its intention to devote its only two Scottish Supply Days to the single subject of Scottish employment and industry, there was a certain amount of criticism and suggestions made that we could not possibly sustain a high-level debate for two days on this one subject. I think that the answer to that has been given by the quality of the speeches which we have heard over the past two days.

Mr. Hector Hughes: And the number left out because they were not called by you, Sir Charles, including myself.

Mr. Ross: I agree—and by the number of frustrated Members on both sides of the House who have had that soul-destroying experience of sitting for two days listening to speeches which were not nearly as good as theirs, and in the end going away with those undelivered epics in their pockets.
We have had some forthright and constructive suggestions from back benchers, and I must confess that we have had some considerable highlights in the two days. I think that not least was the fact that we persuaded, by the importance of the subject, the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Balfour) to break his eight years' silence. I take particular pride in that because the hon. Member was a personal friend of my father and for many years they worked together in the trade union world. I hope that we shall hear him again.
Then we had the speech of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne), who shed his mantle of Parliamentary Private Secretaryship for the occasion. His proud proclamation of Scotland as a piscatorial paradise was most moving. It was pleasing to hear him hankering after haddocks and being the champion of cod. I have no doubt that speech will have far-reaching effects. In Scotland no longer will we hear over the air that "Sausages is the Boys." In future it will be "Haddies is the Laddies."
The back benchers have certainly made the most of their opportunities. We have had a challenging speech from the noble Lord the Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton) demanding a radically new approach, but then he confessed the failure of the last Government and of this Government to induce Scottish industrialists to respond to the challenge. It is not a radically new approach that we require; we require a Socialist approach. We cannot wait indefinitely for private enterprise to deal with the idle acres; failing private enterprise action, direct Government action will have to be taken. Private enterprise was given the chance during the six years of the Labour Government, and it cannot complain if it has refused to take its opportunities.
We cannot blame the back benchers for having failed to take their opportunities to persuade the Government to take action and to declare policy. I confess


my agreement with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who declared that he failed to discern any policy at all in the statements which have so far come from the Government Front Bench. We selected this subject and decided to have a two-day debate not just to give back benchers a chance but more than anything else to give the Government Front Bench a chance to put to Scotland what the Government saw to be the pattern of Scotland's future industrial development and the policy by which the Government sought to bring the pattern into being.
I led a deputation to see the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Ministry of Labour and the President of the Board of Trade. We had a frank, objective discussion during which we put our point of view, and I came away believing that the Secretary of State would open the debate with a statement on Government policy. I frankly confess my disappointment. The Secretary of State failed to give a positive statement of policy, and I am left to conclude that we are just drifting along, and if I come to that conclusion it is because the Government have failed to take their opportunity. We want proof in action of the Government's determination that blight will not return to Scottish industry and that the tales of lost opportunities that we heard from our fathers will not be the tales told by our children.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who gave us the best Front Bench speech that we have so far had, concluded that what was required was new thinking. We should have started the debate with new thinking; we ought not to have had a Minister of the Crown, faced with all the Scottish problems, coming to us and saying that we needed new thinking. We wanted the new thinking and we wanted the result of that new thinking in Government policy, and we have not had it.
It is very flattering to be told—it is all that we were told by the Secretary of State and even by the President of the Board of Trade—that the Government are just carrying on or rounding off the important work started by the Labour Government, such as in hydro-electricity. The increase in coal production was proclaimed, and we were told that we need

not worry this year because of the greater amount of steel which is being produced —hardly an argument for the de-nationalisation of the steel industry. Altogether, the Government have failed to take advantage of the opportunity that we have offered them.
What is the position in Scotland today? We still have 56,556 unemployed, and in order to find a convenient year with which to make a comparison the Parliamentary Secretary had to go back to 1950. If he had gone back to 1949, it would not have been so good and the same would have applied if he had gone back to 1948. He would have had to go back to 1946 for a comparable year

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent me. I was most careful to say that we had to take three years, 1950, 1951 and 1952, to get a correct comparison.

Mr. Ross: I wish he had gone further back than that, and I wish that he had given for those years the figures of short-time working. The figure this year is nearly three times that of 1950, and it was not mentioned at all. I do not think that a corporate figure gives a true reflection of the position, because it fails to reveal the amount of temporary stoppages and short-time working in Scotland at the present time.

Mr. Woodburn: Under-employment.

Mr. Ross: Yes, under-employment. Scotland's percentage unemployment is still double the present-day average for the United Kingdom. I pay tribute to the objectivity of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour in this respect, and also to his sincerity, but it has to be properly followed up by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the President of the Board of Trade. The President of the Board of Trade told us today that Scottish industrial prosperity is dependent on the trading outlook, and he urged Scottish industry to batter down the barriers and the obstacles to trade. Can he tell the Scottish printing industry how they are to batter down the quotas fixed by the Australians? How are the lace and textile workers to batter down the barriers built up by the Australian Government against them?

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: What I was suggesting was that they should not adopt a


policy which was dependent upon erecting physical barriers themselves, because that would show how other barriers could be erected against them.

Mr. Ross: There is no evidence that they have erected such barriers. The right hon. Gentleman is less than fair, and indeed the trouble was that he disguised his lack of policy by generalised phrases, admonitions and the like. But it is not slogans that will cure the trouble in Scotland. The industries themselves cannot batter down the barriers and the quotas; they cannot get behind the Iron Curtain and create more trade between East and West. That is the work of the President of the Board of Trade and the Government, and they have not done it. It is not good enough to say that it is a question of world outlook. The right hon. Gentleman has his say about the form and pattern of what has to be done.
The Westminster Bank Review, in its issue for February this year, contained the chairman's statement. These are things to which we have to attend. Talking about the balance of payments position, which, he said, had of necessity been brought about by a most severe restriction of imports, he went on to say:
The restriction of imports has already endangered the balance of trade of some of the best customers for our own exports. In short, we have balanced our accounts at a low level of trade, and it is at a high level that all countries, and most of all this country, need the balance to be reached.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and the Secretary of State for Scotland referred to the drop in unemployment. There has been a rise in production, but if the fiscal and restrictive steps taken last year had been effective, they would have led to an increase in exports. We have had an increase in production recently—I challenge the President of the Board of Trade to say that I am wrong—but we have not had an equivalent increase in exports. That is a serious matter because once again the balance of payments gap is opening.
One of the things that determined us to have this debate was the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary on an Adjournment debate on unemployment. Paraphrasing what he said, it was that a certain amount of improvement had been made in the balance of payments, and that if we could maintain our position we should be able to pay more attention

to the black spots in Scotland of which there are many.
But the Scottish problems are part of that problem. The solution of the Scottish problems is part of the solution of that question of the balance of payments and the maintenance of our position. We shall not get economic stability if we have 56,000 Scottish people unemployed who could, properly placed, be producing for export. It is unfair to say that we must await the solution of that balance of payments problem before anything is done for Scotland
Today the President of the Board of Trade appealed to the enterprise and the dynamic nature of the Scottish business man. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman was not in to listen to the speech of the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), Judging by that speech, she has not confidence in the enterprise of the local business people, and tonight she will be sitting here, after we have finished this debate, and will vote for subsidies to be given by the Government to that white fish industry.

Lady Tweedsmuir: As the hon. Gentleman has challenged me, I said that the only excuse for a direct subsidy was an industry of great strategic importance to this country, which the fishing industry is.

Mr. Ross: Yes, but if that enterprise and dynamism, of which we have heard so much, were there Government action would not be required. The President of the Board of Trade said that the outlook was not lush. I must say that the right hon. Gentleman is coming back to his old boisterous style and nice choice of words, and I am sure that after he has made his visit to the bracing air of Scotland, he will be restored not only to health but to full rhetorical strength.
The outlook was not lush, he said, but was suited to the hard-working nature of the Scots and their skill and their craft. The Scots have always had that hardworking nature, they have always had their skill and their craft, but that did not prevent the stagnation and decay of Scottish industry in the 1920's and 1930's. We have grim pictures of those days. The City of Glasgow with 109,000 people dependent on Poor Law relief—one-tenth of the whole population. The town


that I represent with one in every five registered males unemployed. And Lanarkshire—[An HON. MEMBER: "Thirty years ago."] Yes, it was 30 years ago, but the people have not forgotten it. The shadows of those days are still remembered.
And when we talk so proudly of the glories of private enterprise, of the "Queen Mary" and the "Queen Elizabeth" being built, let us remember that the "Queen Mary" was better remembered in the Clyde as the "534." When the President of the Board of Trade says that Government action is no substitute for enterprise, let him remember that there would have been no "Queen Mary" but for direct Government intervention.
Government intervention was played down by the right hon. Gentleman. What about hydro-electricity? Where would that be if we had not direct Government action? What about afforestation, which means so much to the Highland area? What about the white fish industry, about which I have spoken? What about agriculture itself? Of course Government action is absolutely necessary. I am perfectly sure that Government action and assistance to aid the individual to see that he realises all those inventive ideas of which the President of the Board of Trade spoke so highly is the only way, in present circumstances, to create the new industries which we want to see in Scotland.
There has been too much talk about the Development Area policy. It is very important, but to my mind there has been neglect of consideration and discussion of the health of our basic industries in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) intended last night to deal with the question of the shipbuilding industry but the time factor was responsible for his remarks being cut short. I was really astounded by the attitude taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Fifty-three thousand tons of orders have been cancelled on the Clyde after a year in which fewer new orders have been received than in any year since the war. It may be that more cancellations are coming. What was the attitude of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He said, "Well it is not so bad."

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I said that it was serious.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman said it was serious, but he also said that it was not so bad.

Mr. Stuart: I said that there was three years' work.

Mr. Ross: But there will not be three years' work if we get more and more cancellations. There will not be three years' work if we get the continued difficulties in the shipbuilding industry envisaged by the Shipbuilding Conference, and if completions are going down in the United Kingdom at a time when they are rising in other countries. The President of the Shipbuilding Conference said that much was dependent not only on delivery dates but also on the question of costs, and that the shipbuilding industry, which was so much dependent on the supplying industries, was affected by the rising costs throughout the whole of British industry.
If there is a tendency towards rising costs, where does it spring from? It springs from the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was he who gave the surge towards demands for wages which have been accepted by independent tribunals owing to the cost of living going up. It was his food subsidy policy, among other things, that brought this about. The Government cannot shirk the consequences of their policy.

Mr. John Maclay: Would the hon. Member permit me to intervene?

Mr. Ross: I am very sorry, but my time is limited.
I agree with the President of the Board of Trade in his statement that Scotland would rise or fall with the ability of our older industries properly to prosper and expand. But the position is that today Britain is trying to earn its living in a world so much different from even the world at the end of the war, a world which is short of food and with a growing population; and so food inevitably becomes dearer. Industrialism has spread throughout the world. It is not so easy for us, first, to get the raw materials; we can only get our share. Secondly, it is not so easy to sell our manufactured goods.
We have found that Britain is vulnerable, both in boom and in slump, on the balance of payments question. In boom the demand and cost of food and raw materials go up and the cost of manufactured goods lags behind. That was the cause of the last crisis. In slump conditions once again we cannot sell our manufactured goods. We have to look into the question of making the proper use of Scottish resources and the proper use of what valuable imported raw materials we can get.
So we must have a fully efficient industrial machine. Have we got it? I do not know if the Secretary of State for Scotland has seen the report published by Mr. Lesser, Lecturer in Economic Statistics at the University of Glasgow. His conclusion, after analysing and comparing the census of production of 1935 with that of 1948, is:
There is every indication that the lower output per head"—
of the Scottish workers—
5 per cent. in 1935 and 6½ per cent. in 1948 is real and means a lower level of productivity. …
that is in Scotland—
While there are considerable variations between different industries the average Scottish industry appears to be at least 5 per cent. less productive than its counterpart in England and Wales. This difference does not show any sign of disappearing. If anything, it was larger in 1948 than before the war.
What is the conclusion we must draw from that? That, once again, the emphasis is on the modernisation of our industrial plant, not only in the Development Areas but throughout the whole industrial field. Many Scottish industrialists have done that. I do not know whether the President of the Board of Trade is coming to Kilmarnock. We are very fortunate in Kilmarnock in having some of the most enterprising firms, who have made great strides and taken the opportunities presented to modernise their factories. This is something about which the Joint Under-Secretary of State spoke the other day. It is very serious and that is why I am emphasising it. He said:
Productivity in the factories and farms of this country is increasing more slowly than in America.
We must remember that they are increasing even more slowly in Scotland, according to the report.

Switzerland, Canada and Holland and, more recently, Germany. … The keen winds of competition will force industry sooner or later to increase its use of highly-trained men, but unless we do something now to increase the supply we may be too late.
On the same day as extracts from that statement were printed in the Scottish Press, there was also published the Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, which had this to say:
The reason why industry as a whole did not make more use of scientists was not because their numbers were insufficient but 'because large sections of industry, being conservative or complacent, neither missed them nor asked for them'.
I am afraid that is true of some of the industries in Scotland. It was proved by the point made by the Joint Under-Secretary. At the time when he was appealing for more young men and women technicians to go into this new and vital section, he was telling us that the supply in Scotland exceeded the demand. It is disgraceful. There was an important part which holds something for the President of the Board of Trade and for another right hon. Gentleman who should be here, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Council's Report concluded:
'It would be a grave mistake to assume that the mere production of a greatly increased number of scientists and engineers would solve all our problems.' Unless further financial and other resources are invested in industry such men could be only of limited use.
If we are to meet these keen winds of competition, then more than ever in Scotland we need a modernised industry and more capital invested in Scottish development. We are not getting it, and one of the reasons we are not getting it is because of the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who set out deliberately to restrict the availability of capital and who told the banks to clamp down and to be a bit harder in the issue of capital, and he did so indiscriminately.
I am afraid I did not understand what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) meant when he suggested that the Labour Government prevented the flow of capital. At any rate, they did not prevent the flow of capital into the right kinds of industries. Whether the industries are good or bad, necessary or not, they are all restricted alike under the present policy. How much better it was for the Capital Issues Committee to consider the national need


and strategic importance and properly to discriminate in favour of those who could do most good for the country. I regret this failure of the Government properly to appreciate the consequences of that policy.
There is another matter, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) was going to raise, in which the Distribution of Industry Act fails. In places like Glasgow, there are old-established industries which cannot possibly expand or modernise because they have not their factory site and space to do so. We shall need to reconsider our whole attitude towards the Distribution of Industry Act in order to see whether it is possible to link it up with the question about which the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Balfour) spoke so movingly, that of the derelict areas. Why not give assistance to these firms to move to new sites and new factories in order that they may expand? It would be very much cheaper, because they are quite prepared to put in the plant for themselves.
I am one of the first to pay tribute to the Distribution of Industry Act for what it has achieved. It has done wonders for Scotland, But for it we would probably have unemployment in Scotland today to the tune of well over 100,000. There is no constituency or area which has derived more advantage from it than Kilmarnock. But I do not think it right that the President of the Board of Trade should set his face against any change being made in that Act. He talked today about our desire to weaken or abandon it. He is the man who has weakened it.
There is obviously not the same incentive under the Act if one deprives it of Section 3 and refuses to help the local authorities to go ahead and do the preparatory work. But when we come to the matter of the Cairncross Report, I really wonder that the Scottish Council for Industry carry on with their work. This is the second time that they have been slapped in the face by the Government. The Government did it over transport and now they are doing it over this question of development.
I am perfectly sure that no one on this side of the Committee would agree that we should neglect the remaining problems in the Development Areas. Further

diversity, provided it is diversity of the right kind, must continue. But, in view of all that has been done, it is surely a diminishing problem. In the old Development Areas we have already provided much. I see it suggested that two-thirds of the tasks have been done. In view of that progressively less and less remains to be done. In fact, very little is being done. The Government should not use this argument to dismiss the Cairncross Report, for its proposals would add to the present limited policy of assisted development.
Surely, the whole lesson of the past for Scotland is one of missed opportunities in getting its share of new developments. We must husband the growth of new industrial communities, and seize the opportunities granted by the chemical developments that are taking place in Scotland. We do not get the same chance twice. To suggest, as the Government did: "Hand it over to the local authorities" does not make sense, in view of the argument of the President of the Board of Trade, who said: "We have not got the money." If the Government have not the money, where are the local authorities to find the money?
We must face this question. If the Government are to accept responsibility for the well-being of the nation, it is essential that they should retain and use power to intervene to guide and stimulate and to establish industries, consistent with their overall vision of strategic, national, government policy. The debate has shown that they have not that strategic, national, government policy. They are prepared to leave everything to private enterprise and to throw away the powers that we gave them under the nationalisation of the steel industry, for example, so vital to Scotland, and powers to get decent transport in Scotland—by their transport de-nationalisation scheme —and now they have turned down this Cairncross Report.
This has been quite an epoch-making debate in many senses. One English Minister even quoted Burns, from the poem "To a Mouse." There are, however, two lines more that he should have quoted, two lines that to my mind epitomise the feeling of the man in the street about the Government's performance in


respect of the future of Scottish industry, in view of what happened last year and what has been said today. They are:
But oh! I backward cast my e'e
On prospects drear!
An' forward tho' I canna see,
I guess an' fear!

9.33 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I, at least, find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in this sense: we have come to the end of a debate which has been unique in many respects. Perhaps never before in the annals of Scottish Parliamentary business, as the hon. Member says, has this Chamber been occupied for two days by such a sustained and sweeping examination of Scotland's industrial position.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What is the reason?

Mr. Stewart: I will come to that point.
Never before, as has been pointed out more than once, has the Government Front Bench been so well and so consistently full of Ministers from so many Departments. In my own fairly long Parliamentary experience I do not remember a debate which has been more constructive or better tempered throughout. I am sure that its results will be good. On behalf of my right hon. Friend, and indeed on behalf of the Government, I want to compliment the Opposition upon the part that they have played in this exercise. We have welcomed their initiative in putting down such a wide but connected range of Votes which has made this debate possible, and we hope that the precedent thus established will serve us well in the future. We all begin, therefore, upon that common point of agreement.
I have been asked a very large number of questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweeds) asked at least a dozen. Hon. Members have sought information upon an even larger number of matters, and criticism and comment have been made wholesale. Clearly, I could not, in the time available, even if I wanted to, cover all or even most of those matters, and I do not think that the Committee will expert me to do that.
Perhaps I may serve the Committee best if I try to gather together the various

activities of the Government, explaining, if I can, the policy that underlies them. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said that he had failed to find it. I should like to accommodate him before this evening is over and indicate, where it is possible, the broad plans that the Government are trying to carry out.
I should like to take up at once the suggestion which was made by an hon. Member in yesterday's debate that Scotland feared a slump. I say at once, without any qualification at all and with the full authority of the Government, that there is no foundation and no evidence of any kind for any such fear now. I know that we shall have our difficulties in the years that lie ahead. In this changing world we cannot foresee how trade may develop in any other country, but our experts in the Government, having examined the situation with all their skill and with all the facts at their disposal, advise us, and we accept their advice, that with good management, hard work and a bit of luck—[HON. MEMBERS: "Luck."]—yes, the nation needs some luck—there is no reason at all why the United Kingdom should not continue to enjoy growing prosperity.
But in all our efforts, and in all our daydreams of a greater Scotland of the future, two facts stand out—grim and inescapable facts. The first is the fact that for her livelihood, her sustenance and her employment Scotland, like the rest of the United Kingdom, depends, and will depend for as long as any of us can foresee, upon massive imports of food and raw materials from abroad. To acquire those necessities of life in a highly competitive world like ours we have to find increasing markets for our exports.
The second fact is that to succeed in that vital activity we have to keep our prices at the keenest competitive level, and we have to maintain, and if possible increase, the national credit in the eyes of the world. Neither fact is new. They confronted the last Government and have been with us since the end of the war. They have dominated the policy of successive Governments and they dominate policy today. Translated into the simplest terms, they mean that unless we maintain a firm control upon our economy, inflation and excessive public spending and increased taxation may well destroy all chance of national development. I make


that point, in careful words, in reply to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock.
We were in great danger of that very fate in the autumn of 1951. The facts of the situation then demanded drastic measures restricting public expenditure and curtailing capital investment. Nobody liked those measures but there is no doubt at all now that they were justified and that our whole economic position is stronger in consequence. As a result, during the past year we have been able slowly but increasingly to relax restraints, and by that very relaxation give new impetus to industrial activity throughout the United Kingdom; and in Scotland, as my right hon. Friend showed yesterday, production is again rising.

Mr. Hector Hughes: rose—

Mr. Stewart: There is very little time to reply to a very difficult debate, and I ask the hon. and learned Member to allow me to continue.

Mr. Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman answer a question?

Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) said yesterday in a very reasoned speech, our reserves are still precarious and the country will be foolish to believe that everything is now easy. I hope that the Committee will allow me to make these preliminary observations before I come to the Scottish points. We must continue, possibly for many years to come, to husband our resources with great care. Until our national wealth is substantially increased we have no alternative but to concentrate development upon those projects calculated to render the most immediate and worthwhile contribution to our economic recovery. It is that policy that Her Majesty's Government are pursuing, and those are the thoughts that dominate all that we are endeavouring to do.
In many ways it is a heartbreaking policy to pursue. In all parts of the country there is a multitude of attractive, popular and necessary projects which call to be started. It is distressing to have to turn down or postpone so many of them. Yet I am sure that it will be clear to the Committee that if we were to sanction all those schemes now, we should re-create almost overnight the very conditions of inflation and overspending that we have fought so hard to

put behind us and which, once restored, would kill the prospect of any development anywhere.
We have heard from my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvin-grove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) of the desirability of the Clyde tunnel and we have heard from other hon. Members about the desirability of a Forth road bridge and a Tay road bridge. Of course, all these things would be good for our country if we could carry them forward. I should like to start them all tomorrow, but if we did them all now we should destroy the very fabric that we have created with such pain in the course of the last two years. Each scheme can only be approved if it offers to us an almost immediate return towards our economic recovery.
A powerful case was made for the Clyde tunnel by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvin-grove and we shall, of course, examine what he has said. In the case of the Forth road bridge, even if we were to start it tomorrow, we are told that it would take from eight to 10 years to complete, and clearly the right thing to do is to do something quickly and effectively at once by means of a ferry. That is the obvious and right thing to do, and that is what we hope we may be able to do.
As I have said, we are gradually and steadily lifting the restraints. The Committee will have observed that quarter by quarter further sums are released and grants made for public improvements of one kind or another and further capital investment is authorised. I should like to give one or two examples of these easings of restraints and of the works, developments and efforts which the Government favour and assist financially and otherwise because they feel that they contribute at once to our national recovery.
But first, I should like to take up the point made about the Export Credits Guarantee Act. I was asked to what extent this Act was applied to Scotland. The fullest use of all our powers under this Act is made in Scotland, as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have offices of that Department in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and close contact is maintained with Scottish exporters.
In May of this year over 300 exporters in Scotland were insured under Sections 1 and 2 of the Act for an estimated turnover of £4 million. That figure, of course, does not include help given to firms producing in Scotland whose head offices are in London and which negotiate the credits from that city. I hope that these figures will be useful to hon. Members.
I want to give one or two examples of the operations we are carrying out, and I shall begin at the local government end. We feel it is essential that local government services in Scotland should be as efficient as possible. To that end, we have given to local government massive support in the provision of better houses for the workers, because we think that good housing is an absolutely essential condition of efficiency. We are now building more houses than at any other time in the history of Scotland.

Mr. Manuel: With fewer rooms.

Mr. Stewart: The standard is precisely that laid down by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). That is something which, I should have thought, would not be opposed even by the most ardent supporters of hon. Members opposite, in their heart of hearts. It is something for which we can take credit. [Laughter.] If the party opposite had achieved anything like our records, they would be very happy. I did not know that sour grapes could cause such a gripe.
Let us take another example of local government services. The equalisation grant, to which my right hon. Friend referred the other day, is an example of financial support, and direct action on the part of the Government, to sustain local government services.
I pass now to the basic industries. There was some criticism of my right hon. Friend because he did not devote a lot of time to the question of agriculture. As he said, there has already been a debate on the subject. I repeat what he said. We believe agriculture to be the greatest of all our industries, and the action we have taken, and the financial support we have offered to agriculture in these last 20 months, must be complete proof of the value we attach to this

industry and the determination we have to maintain it.

Mr. T. Fraser: Has the hon. Member read the report, in this morning's "Scotsman," in connection with yesterday's meeting of the National Farmers' Union?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, but I do not accept all the "Scotsman" says as gospel, at any time. The fact is that there was a steady and rather terrifying fail in the agricultural area in the time of the Government of hon. Members opposite. We have stopped that fall; indeed, we have reversed it. Moreover, forestry continues to make quite remarkable advances in all directions, and we are doing our best to support this advance.
Many hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne)—have mentioned the fishing industry. As the Committee know, I have had dealings with this industry for a very long time, in a political way. It presents one of the most intractable problems with which any Government can be faced. The home demand for both herrings and white fish is falling. The taste of the people is changing. It is a very difficult situation. To make up for that we have facilitated, encouraged and helped the splendid efforts of the Herring Industry Board to obtain contracts from Russia last year and this year and, with my hon. Friend the Member for Banff, I hope that we shall see a better period in this industry.
I should like to develop the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South about the Moray Firth, Iceland, the conservation of fish, and the Reports of the White Fish Authority, but she will understand that it is very difficult for me to do that when I have a great many other matters to cover in the time at my disposal. I shall, however—as I must do with a great many other hon. Members—ask her permission to write to her.
I pass to another of the major industries. Hon. Members opposite, who seem to find my reply so light and amusing, should realise what is happening about the development of coal resources in Scotland. I do not want to detain the Committee, but I have a list of the coal


works being done, the mines being sunk, the progress being made and the capital being invested. It is a massive undertaking. The fact is that here is a piece of Scottish industry which we are doing our utmost to develop and support, and we will go on doing so. The fact that it is a nationalised industry makes not the slightest difference from our point of view.
Take steel, Here is a non-nationalised industry. I made an announcement in the debate last year about what was happening, and the Committee may like to know about the developments since then. I mentioned that a fourth blast furnace was to be erected at the Clyde Iron Works, and the manufacture of the ancillary plant is now proceeding. Work on the furnace itself has, however, been suspended owing to a change in the company's plans.
When I spoke last year it was expected that the coke required for the new blast furnace would be produced at Dixon's Ironworks, Glasgow, but it was known that the plant there would have to be rebuilt. The Scottish Gas Board is at present dependent on coke oven gas from Dixon's, but quite recently the Board decided to instal a new water gas plant, the production from which should enable them to dispense with gas from Dixon's. Colvilles will have to provide themselves the coke which they require. The logical development is to build new coke ovens beside the new blast furnace plant.
There is not a great deal of room for expansion at the Clyde Ironworks and the company have, therefore, proposed to erect the new blast furnace and coke ovens at Motherwell, where there will be space for still further expansion. This new proposal is now being examined by the Iron and Steel Board. In all, Colvilles will be investing over £27 million at Motherwell at the Clyde Iron Works and at the General Terminus Docks on the Clyde, where new ore-unloading plant is to be built. That is another project which I am glad to announce which the Government are doing all they can to support, encourage and advance.
Now a word about shipbuilding. The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) made some striking and damaging comments on the situation there. He said two-thirds of the new orders had been

cancelled. In fact, it is an amount equivalent to two-thirds of the new orders obtained during the same six months. My right hon. Friend showed no complacency about this; these are substantial losses of orders. All that he sought to do—and I think the Committee would wish me to do it again—was to put them in their proper setting. If I give the figures to the Committee I think they will agree that my right hon. Friend was justified in saying that there is no need for panic or anything approaching panic.
In the first six months of this year orders for between 60,000 and 70,000 tons of new shipping have been cancelled. Of course, that is regrettable, but the amount of tonnage involved is very small compared with the orders which remain. Over 800,000 tons are now under construction and work on over 1,400,000 tons, which have been ordered, has not yet begun. The total orders on the books, "therefore amount to over 2,200,000 tons and the cancellations this year amount to just over 3 per cent. of the orders for all Scotland.
Nobody is complacent about that; everybody is concerned about it. Nevertheless, I invite the Committee and the country not to panic about it. We hope, as the Labour Party hope in their document, that things will improve. In "Challenge to Britain" they say that shipbuilding
has been working to full capacity since the war. But there are signs of a falling off in demand partly because the post-war boom has ended and partly because other countries are building for themselves and for export.
What are the Labour Party going to do about it? The hon. Member was rather wroth with us and chastised us. He said, "What is the Government's policy?" This is what the Labour Party are going to do.

Mr. Manuel: We want to know what the Government are going to do.

Mr. Stewart: I am looking for wisdom, and this is where I find it from the other side. They say:
A Labour Government will try to stabilise demand for ships, and therefore to stabilise production and employment. All possible steps will be taken to maintain a steady flow of orders in bad times as well as in good.
If that is not the most pious and fatuous statement that I have ever read I do not know what is.


Other great developments which we are pushing forward with all our strength and resources are the new oil refineries at Grangemouth. We support them. It is our policy to advance them. The technological developments which are already established in Scotland we propose to advance. The right hon. Gentleman asked me about technical education. He said something about cheeseparing. I do not think he could have talked with considered language, because he must know that there has been no curtailment of technical education. No local education authority or education body of any kind in Scotland that has sought to produce further buildings or further work on technical education has been refused permission. On the contrary, we are everywhere and always urging them to do still more.
Just a word about transport in the very little time left to me. Let me put the Committee right about the new grant of £1 million for Highland roads. It is in addition to everything else. It means, to summarise quickly, that developments next year and the year after of Highland roads will be substantially greater than they have been this year, and this year they have been considerable. The intention of the new grant is to provide better access for industries in the Highlands. That is what it is for—forestry, fishing, agriculture. It is a constructive, industrial effort.
I cannot deal with all the other matters I had in mind, but perhaps I may be allowed to say this, in conclusion. The policy that my right hon. Friend set himself to follow when he took office was not to be expected to be dramatic and theatrical. That is not the kind of thing that my right hon. Friend does, but I think it will be seen by any fair-minded critic that in the last 18 or 20 months there has been steady, well-considered, well-managed administration at the Scottish Office. I exclude myself entirely from that. I know this much that by the things we have done and the plans which I have sought, perhaps not very well, to expound, Scotland will see that practical, constructive advance is being made.
I noticed that the hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was impatient with my right hon. Friend. I do not know whether he was impatient with his right hon. Friends during the six years of their administration—whether they tried his

patience or not. I noticed also that the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), on Sunday, made some most interesting remarks. He said:
The Labour Party entered the 1951 Election without any policy at all, in a mood of sterile anti-Toryism. We have been suffering in the past two years from the effects of two Elections fought on a wholly negative policy.
I think that all of us would say, "Hear, hear." At least it can be said, whether one agrees with the Government's policy or not, that it is a policy, it is clear, it is considered, and with the facts which have been displayed during this debate it can be seen that in housing, industry, and many other ways we have made a great advance.

It being Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

COLLIERY WORKERS (SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS)

10.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. R. H. Turton): I beg to move,
That the Draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment Order, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.
This draft Order amends the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme. This scheme was made in 1948, and is a contributory scheme providing supplementary benefits for persons receiving industrial injuries benefit in respect of colliery accidents and diseases.
Under Section 83 of the Industrial Injuries Act, 1946, any body of persons claiming to represent insured persons and their employers in any industry may submit a scheme providing for supplementing the benefits of injured workmen, and under the same section the Minister may amend a supplementary scheme if he is so requested by the body charged with the administration of the scheme.
This scheme is administered by a national committee formed from representatives of the National Coal Board, the


Federation of Small Mineowners of Great Britain, the National Union of Mine-workers, the National Association of Colliery Overmen Deputies and Shot-firers, and other colliery workers. It is this national committee that has agreed upon and requested the Minister to make these amendments.
There are four main amendments. The first, to secure that the scale of the supplementary injury benefit is 20s. per week for those over 18 and for those under 18 with a dependant, 15s, per week, for those between 17 and 18, and 10s. for those under 17. The second is to increase the supplementary disablement pension for those with 100 per cent. assessments from 18s. 4d. to 20s. if over 18 or below 18 with a dependant, from 13s. 9d. to 15s. if between 17 and 18, and from 9s. 3d. to 10s. if below 17. The third is to increase the rate of supplementary widows pensions for widows below the age of 40 from 5s. to 6s. 3d. per week. The fourth is to provide a supplement to disablement gratuities at the rate of one-quarter of the basic gratuity.
The scheme is financed quite independently of the Industrial Injuries Act and imposes no charges on either the Industrial Injuries Fund or the Exchequer. The cost of these amendments, which will be borne by the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme Fund, is estimated at £275,000 a year. This includes consequential amendment to other schemes which are financed from the fund. The Government Actuary, who acts as actuary to the scheme, is satisfied that the fund can carry the additional burden. I therefore ask the House to approve this Order.

Question put, and agreed to.

WHITE FISH INDUSTRY

10.3 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I beg to move.
That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1953, dated 26th June, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.

Mr. Edward Evans: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? The Parliamentary Secretary is proposing to discuss the scheme standing in the name of the Government. We have a Prayer down asking that the Order relating to the White Fish Authority levy should be annulled. I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if the scheme and the Prayer could be debated together. I am quite sure that the debate could range over both of these aspects of the fishing industry, and I hope that you will allow that to be done.

Mr. Speaker: If the House is agreeable to that course I have no objection.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: Does that mean that both the Prayer and the scheme will be taken at the same time and that the discussion can range over the two?

Mr. Speaker: That, I understood, was the idea.

Mr. Evans: The Prayer, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), is as follows:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the White Fish Authority (General Levy) (Amendment) Regulations Confirmatory Order, 1953 (S.I., 1953, No. 887), dated 27th May, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th May, be annulled.

Mr. Nugent: Might I say, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government, that we shall be pleased to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) to discuss the two together. It will save time and they deal with very much the same subject.
Although this is the first scheme relating to the white fish subsidy which has come before the House under the 1953 White Fish and Herring Industry


Act, the subsidy is in itself no novelty. It was introduced in 1950 to meet the economic difficulties of the industry. It was hoped at that time, when it was introduced on a somewhat ad hoc basis, that if would be temporary and would soon be brought to an end, but, unfortunately, the troubled conditions of the fishing industry continued and it has been carried on year by year since then on an administrative basis. We felt that it must be put on a statutory basis, and, therefore, we put into the 1953 Act power to make schemes for paying the subsidies, and I am now moving the first subsidy scheme.
With one amendment of substance, this is the same scheme as has been running for the past three years under administrative arrangements. Briefly, it provides for the inshore fishing vessels the continuance of a flat-rate subsidy of 10d. per stone for all fish caught, other than shellfish, which is the same as before, and for the near and middle water vessels it provides the continuance of the scheme to which we have been accustomed in the past, a kind of voyage insurance scheme as set out in Part I of the Schedule. In broad terms, that is a scheme which gives a payment of so much a day according to the size and condition of the vessel.
The new feature is that in addition to the voyage insurance scheme we are proposing to pay a 4d. per stone flat-rate for all fish caught by the near and middle water vessels. We are doing this because, during the past year, we have found that the economic conditions of the near and middle water fishing fleets have, unfortunately, continued to deteriorate. They showed some improvement in 1951, but in 1952 they have shown further deterioration, and in recognition of that, under the administrative arrangements then running, in our review last March we decided that we should pay this flat rate in addition to the insurance scheme. The 4d. per stone flat rate was introduced on 1st April this year under administrative arrangements and is now incorporated in this scheme.
We have been asked to make an even more generous provision than this. The British Trawler Owners' Federation have told us of their difficulties and asked for more, but I submit that the provision that we are making is a generous one

and should be sufficient to meet the industry's difficulties. I am the first to recognise that the industry has difficulties and that, even with this assistance, it will not have an easy time, but when we realise that the extra 4d., representing an extra £600,000 per year for the industry, will make a total subsidy for the inshore and near and middle water vessels of about some £2½ million per year, which is about 13 per cent. of the total revenue of the two fishing fleets, I am sure we shall agree that that is as far as the House should be asked to go at this stage.
One other aspect should be emphasised. The parent Act provides a total of £7½ million in subsidy to be spent over the next five years. There is provision for an additional £2½ million, making a total of £10 million altogether if the Minister is satisfied that there is a case for the extension, and the House approves. Even if the whole £10 million is taken into account, it represents an average of only £2 million a year over the whole five years.
I am recommending the House to approve a scheme which makes a payment of £2½ million a year and, therefore, to that extent committing us to a lower level in the future. It would be unwise further to commit this limited fund. I therefore feel confident that the House will see that this is a just and generous provision for the inshore and near middle water fishing fleets and that it will give it its approval.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: On behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House, I give a very warm welcome to this scheme. It is obvious that the policy initiated by the Labour Government three years ago, of applying a subsidy to the White Fish Industry, has now become absolutely essential to the well-being of that industry. When we discussed, earlier, the provision which allows the Minister to provide this subsidy we were all at one in acknowledging that it was very important indeed if this great industry was not to go out of commission altogether, and we were agreed that something should be done to stabilise and support it.
It is in that spirit that we on this side lend our support to this scheme, and it is interesting to observe the benefits not


only to the class of fishing vessels in the near and inshore waters but to the actual crews themselves. In the Report of the White Fish Authority, I see that the annual earnings of crews in 1950–51 were, with subsidy £415 and without subsidy £371; in 1951–52, with subsidy £445 and without subsidy £385. That is a very substantial increase in earnings, dependent entirely on the application of the subsidy to the smaller vessels, and because of that the working fisherman was able to achieve that increase in his standard of living.
It is also true that the owner benefits. The total net profit with subsidy in 1951–52 was £27,491, and without the subsidy £4,474. Those are very telling figures, and although we were hoping that with the constitution of the White Fish Authority the industry would be able to pull itself together and get on an economic basis, we now know that, owing to world conditions, without a subsidy from the Exchequer it is very improbable if it could have achieved that position. I estimate that up to now over £4 million has passed from the Exchequer to the industry in order to help it.
I am very interested in this scheme. I notice that in previous schemes there were only three categories; in this one there seems to be nine, depending on the voyages to the Faroes and other voyages. I am glad to see that the limit in earnings in the case of 140 ft. vessels has risen from £780 to £1,440, which is practically double, and the maximum for any voyage from £144 to £180. Those are encouraging figures for the industry, but it is up to the industry to justify them and, if it can, to dispense with these subsidies, because in all-out fishing it is possible for a trawler to be able to live on its own work.
I hope that more and more we shall see a greater stabilisation in this industry. I shall be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary will clear up the difficult point of the daily earning subsidy and also the figure of 4d. a stone which is ambiguous in the scheme, although perhaps I was thinking in terms of the old scheme. We must congratulate the Government on putting this scheme into operation.
If I may refer to the Prayer that it was my desire to move, it is a strange feature in these days that anyone should

ask for less pay. However, it is not pleasing to me that the White Fish Authority should ask us to approve the cutting of their revenue by one half. On this side of the House we take a paternal interest in this matter, and I know that the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) and other hon. Gentlemen opposite share our anxiety. It seems to us serious that a public authority, set up to rehabilitate the fishing industry, can say after two years of working that they have so much money that they do not know what to do with it. That is a grave reflection on them.
We put down our Prayer in order to ask the Parliamentary Secretary for an explanation of this phenomenon, because it is that, and to tell us a little more about the workings of the White Fish Authority. Having been particularly interested in setting up the Authority, I am sad to hear the criticisms about its non-activity which come from all the ports. I have here the annual report of the Chairman of the Milford Steam Trawling Company. He says:
The White Fish Authority cannot be considered a success. It has done virtually nothing.
I do not say that I agree with this, because there are qualifications, but that is how it is striking people in various parts of the country. He goes on:
Various schemes have been adumbrated, but they have come to nothing largely because the co-operation of the industry has been forfeited.
He uses the word "forfeited," but it has not been forthcoming for many reasons. To continue the quotation:
A large sum in levy has been collected and there is talk of using some of this for an advertising campaign. The fate of the W.F.A. is a tragedy. The reasons for it are obscure. Perhaps it set its sights too high and ignored minor remedies in the search for one sovereign cure which has proved as elusive as the philosopher's stone;"—
This is an eloquent fish merchant, I must say; he ought to be in this House—
Perhaps it surrounds itself with self-made idealistic rules. It must act commercially; it must treat all alike, because it is a public authority. Such incompatible principles inhibit all action. One cannot run the fishing industry on precedent.
That is precisely what the fishing industry has been running on for many years. We were hoping that the White Fish Authority would infuse a new spirit


into it, particularly a new spirit of co-operation.
In my view, the greatest disability is the fluctuation of interests within the industry itself. To name a few, there is the near water and distant water, the inshore and trawling, the seine net and trawling and, I am sorry to have to say it, there is England and Scotland. We were hoping that all these conflicting interests would be co-ordinated by the White Fish Authority. Then there is the producer and the merchant, combined for once against the friers and the fishmongers.
There are several aspects of the work which cause us disquiet. I am appalled that with such huge resources, with a surplus of £244,000—

Mr. W. S. Duthie: Two hundred and seventy-seven thousand pounds.

Mr. Evans: I spoke from memory— that with all these resources, so little, only £824, is spent on research and about £700 on training.
We have often said, we said it in Committee on the occasion of the Government's last Sea Fish Industry Bill, that one of the prime needs is to recruit into this service young people who are to man the fleets in the future. The decline in the numbers of trawlers is deplorable; and more deplorable and tragic still is the decline in the numbers of young men who are coming forward. Along the coast, in the seaports, there are technical schools for young people who we are hoping will train to be mates and skippers. All that the White Fish Authority can do to help those local authorities is to pay out £800.
In connection with research, one thinks of the vast sums spent in technical research in the chemical industry and in agriculture, which is a kind of sister industry to fishing. I concede, of course, that the Ministry spends a considerable amount on research, but we were hoping that with all these resources the White Fish Authority could do a little better than expend £700 on research. There are any number of fields of research— research into new fishing grounds and into the habits of fish.
It is particularly important that we should conduct research into the question of new fishing grounds. Bearing in

mind the kind of action taken by Norway in closing their coast, and by Iceland, about which there has been a tremendous amount of feeling in the country, it is very important indeed that the White Fish Authority should expand its research development and try to discover new fishing grounds. Otherwise, there will be very little fish in this country in a few years' time. We all know that over-fishing has been and is one of the major problems confronting us, particularly in the near and middle water fishings. We had the problem of the Moray Firth raised in the House only a day or two ago; and there are other problems.
I suggest that the White Fish Authority are the appropriate body to take action over the Icelandic imbroglio. Why let the initiative go to the British Trawler Owners' Federation? Good luck to the Federation for taking the initiative, but I should have thought that the appropriate body would have been the White Fish Authority, who might now transfer it to the Over-Fishing Commission which has been set up, and on which, I understand, we have two members.
As I have said, the figures in relation to the fleet are most disquieting. The White Fish Authority state, in their Report—which is interesting, but not particularly constructive; it is more a historical document than a forward-looking document—gives figures of the state of the fishing fleet and the age distribution of the trawler fleet at 31st December, 1952. Vessels built from 1891 to 1912 number 128 in England and Wales and 46 in Scotland. So we get down to the early years of the century. I should say that rather more than half the fleet today is over 30 years old.
There is any amount of legislation. When we were in power we passed a very useful Bill giving great sums of money, running into millions, in loans and grants. This year we have again allocated vast sums and today there are £25 million available to the White Fish Authority to enable new vessels to have grants or loans. It is time something was done about the matter, but we shall not be able to do anything until we recruit the men.
I should have thought one of the major tasks of the White Fish Authority


lay in the field of marketing and distribution. If only we could persuade the average housewife to buy a little more fish a week, the whole of the fishing problem would be solved. The amounts going for meal and manure need not go for those purposes if only we could eat a little more fish per family. With all these funds lying idle, I should have thought the White Fish Authority could embark on a great campaign of publicity and marketing. In that, I feel sure that a great deal of their best efforts would lie.
Very few of us know what is the essential problem of the fishing industry. That is a remarkable thing to say, but I have been on the periphery of the industry for about 25 years and I know rather less now than I knew when I first became interested in it, because then I thought I knew it all. We ought to have a blueprint of the fishing industry. Many hon. Members opposite and on this side of the House are more knowledgeable on this matter than I am. I am sure they would agree that all the ramifications of the industry ought to be plotted and it is the duty of the Government to let us know the problems and how we should tackle them.
In recent years the box difficulty has emerged. Why cannot the White Fish Authority buy up the boxes and lease them? They would then have power to sue for non-return. Today, owners are most diffident about going into court in order to sue for non-return of boxes but the White Fish Authority, being outside the trade, could undertake that service.
I should like to see more adventure in the Authority. It has a very distinguished sailor at its head. During the war he was one of our most adventurous commanders. I wish he would show a little more adventurous spirit today in this great problem of the fishing industry. I wish the Authority could do something to shorten the journey of the fish from the ship to the slab. Let us get more direct contact and cut out some of the stopping places on the road. I should like to see direct service instituted. The White Fish Authority have to get down to these jobs. One job they have to do is to tell us about—to instruct us and help us on—the question of foreign landings,

which is a very acute question and one on which the industry feels very strongly.
We shall hear what is said in the course of the debate before deciding how far to press the Prayer.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Duthie: I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans). We have been "buddies" in this House for many years and are very interested in fishing matters.

The question of an increase of subsidy for the near water and middle distance vessels is a very good move, but it would have been a better move if we had cut out the daily sum altogether and increased the subsidy as a straight subsidy per stone. The new proposal is worth a trial. The inherent weakness in this method of paying subsidies is that when there is a daily payment and results fall short of a certain sum a vessel can tie up for two or three days and still get the money. In fact, that has been done. There is a further incentive to near water and middle distance men, but it would have been a better incentive if it were a straight subsidy per stone.

Many hon. Members on both sides of the House are very deeply concerned about the state of affairs in the White Fish Authority. We played our part in the discussions on the Sea Fish Industry Bill which set up the White Fish Authority. When that Bill was being debated, we on this side of the House stated that, in our opinion, the setting up of the White Fish Authority was not the solution to the problems of the white fish industry. We took the view that it was only an instrument, and that it all depended on how that instrument was used.

The instrument has been handled very badly. There is no getting away from that. Problems which the White Fish Authority are in duty bound to tackle have not been tackled. The question of fishing grounds is surely something within the province of the Authority. We must realise that the extension of territorial waters is very much in the air. What happened at the International Court at The Hague in regard to Norwegian territorial waters started the ball rolling, and the probability is that we shall have other such problems.

We must find other fishing grounds. As has been said in this House on previous occasions, we must explore the Gulf Stream area. Wherever there is plankton, there is edible fish, and the plankton lives and has its being in the Gulf Stream.

Again, there is the question of fishing methods. For generations we have been tied to the otter trawl, the most destructive method of fishing that man has ever devised. So long as we can catch fish with the floating trawl we are all right. Here is a subject on which a great deal of research and experiment have been carried out by Denmark, Norway and Sweden, but our White Fish Authority is obviously doing nothing about it. A vessel equipped with all kinds of trawls should be out in mid-Atlantic today fishing for edible fish.

With regard to the reduction of the levy, obviously, this body does not know how to spend its money. I think it is desirable that the levy should be reduced, but it is incumbent on the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to ensure that the instrument is properly operated. If the personnel which is at present handling the affairs of the White Fish Authority is not adequate for the job, then it is the duty of the Minister to see that the right men are given the job. It could be a great instrument if properly handled, but if it is not properly handled then the responsibility rests with this House.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) and my hon. Friend have covered much of the ground concerning these Statutory Instruments, I do not propose to detain the House for very long, because I completely agree with what they have already said, but there are one or two points which I want to put to the Minister, and which may have a slight variation in colour to what has already been stated.
I welcome the subsidy scheme, but no doubt the Minister is aware that at present there is no extra help with regard to the inshore fishing industry. When he is reflecting upon these matters, I want him to think not only in terms of the percentage of fish caught by that part of the industry but to bear in mind that we have to keep open the small ports

of the United Kingdom in the interests of defence and also that from the inshore fishermen we draw men who can defend this island in time of peril. At all times, the Minister must bear these vital points in mind.
He must also consider that rather mysterious form of fishing, the shellfish industry. In this scheme it has no benefit at all; yet, despite the mystery which surrounds it, it is there, and if we are to get our people thoroughly to appreciate sea food in all its great variety, and if our people are to think in terms of different types of fish and not just fish, which is so necessary, then we might turn aside and think of the shellfish industry's difficulties as well.
I share the anxiety expressed about the whole question of the White Fish Authority. Nobody has greater respect than I for the gallant man who runs it, but we want to see that the enormous force which is latent in him is used to the fullest extent to promote this industry. If we realise that the whole fishing industry, even now, is like unto agriculture in the time of the hunter—because we have to hunt fish—then the research which has to be made, and the number of things which have to be looked into, become obvious to all hon. Members.
Yet, when all the research and all the inclination to find out what has to be done appears obvious to us all, it is at that time that the Authority states we have enough money, and can do with less. Much as one likes to have not to pay so much, it appears strangely strange that they cannot find sufficient things on which to spend money for the development of the industry.
Perhaps all is not well with the Authority in which we vested such great hopes; and we did hope that it would help to solve some of the problems. But, in fairness, no hon. Member who had anything to do with the passage of the Bill through Parliament failed to realise that the problems confronting the Authority were very heavy.

10.39 p.m.

Miss Irene Ward: I, too, am grateful, so far as my part of the world is concerned, for the assistance these proposals give to the near and middle water fishing fleets. We gladly recognise that the Government is now


coming forward with some additional assistance to those engaged in the fishing industry. I would, however, emphasise that not only is the white fish industry indebted to the Government for this additional help but the Government are greatly indebted to the fishing community for the support they give, in a general sense, to the country.
I could wish that as much attention was paid to the problems of the fishing industry as is paid to the problems of agriculture. I have very often listened to hon. Members in this House making attacks on those who go out on the high seas, not only to earn their own livelihoods but to earn valuable assets for this country. It is tremendously important that all should realise the debt of gratitude we owe to our fishing fleets and to those who sail in them.
I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his confirmation of the fact that the near and middle water fishing vessels have been going through a very serious and difficult time. That should be a quite conclusive answer to those who sometimes doubt the stories of hardship told by the British trawler owners and those who earn their livings at the fishing ports. Doubt is sometimes cast upon the statements they make about their difficulties. My hon. Friend emphasised the fact that those difficulties were very real, and that the near and middle water fishing fleets must have some assistance if they are to overcome the problems which face them.
Certain statements have been made about the White Fish Authority. I support my hon. Friends and the hon. Member opposite and say that I—and all those who are engaged in the fishing industry are very disappointed with the performance of the White Fish Authority. It may be that when that Authority was formed the problems it had to face were not sufficiently appreciated, but it would probably be to the benefit of the fishing industry if a change were made in its personnel. I am sorry to have to say this, because one always realises that when people take on a rather difficult task they do the best they possibly can to make it a success. But we are not concerned with personalities; we are concerned with getting the best men for a very important and essential job.
I hope that when the reappointment of the White Fish Authority—which, I understand, is due next year—comes up for consideration by the Minister, he will try to find out whether he can get more expert people to serve on it. Unless something is done to assist our fishing industry I can only say—speaking particularly for my own port, North Shields —that we shall face a very difficult future. The country cannot afford to have a sick fishing industry, and I hope, therefore, that between now and the time when the Authority has to be reappointed, my hon. Friend will consider its composition and see whether it is not possible to get it manned by people who can deal more firmly and in better heart with the problems which have to be faced.
That is all I want to say, except to thank my hon. Friend for the action he has taken, and to say, at the same time, that we require a great deal more thought, care and explanation to the public of their debt to our fishing industry. I wish my hon. Friend and the industry well. It is an industry of vital importance to our people.

Mr. D. Marshall: The hon. Lady used the word "attack." I assume she meant that word to apply to prices and not to the men who go to sea?

Miss Ward: I have listened to people talking about the price that is paid for fish, without having any regard for those who man our ships and bring back the fish. I quite agree that we want the housewives to have the best quality fish at the lowest possible price, but a proper price has to be paid for the fish landed, and it is extremely disheartening, when I go down to my port, to see the difficulties experienced in marketing first-class catches of white fish. It ought to be pointed out to the consumer and the shop-keepers that the fishermen have problems, and that in attacking prices due consideration must be given to the legitimate interests of the men who make the catches.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I do not want to be too critical of this draft scheme, but I think it is quite unworthy of the White Fish Authority. It does not deal fully with the problems the Authority were set up


to meet. The Authority has been a great disappointment to all well-wishers of the industry.
I entirely support what the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) said, and I also agree with what the hon. Lady said about the constitution of the industry as a whole. When she spoke of the courage and skill of fishermen she did not exaggerate. The White Fish Authority does not appear to realise that the industry is spread all round our coasts, and that fishing communities in certain remote districts are being driven out of business by high freight rates.
The Authority have done nothing about that, and places like Aberdeen, Lerwick and Wick, remote from Billingsgate, are undoubtedly placed in a position of being unable to compete with places nearer the market large consuming centres of the South. I see you are nodding, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to say anything which is out of order, but I do urge the Authority, through you, to bear in mind the freight problem.

Mr. Edward Evans: Will the hon. and learned Member not agree that equalisation applies equally to vegetables, fruit and coal?

Mr. Hughes: That question would entice me to give an answer which would be completely out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Then I would advise the hon. and learned Gentleman not to fall into that temptation.

Mr. Hughes: My answer to the hon. Gentleman would be in the affirmative, Sir.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I have three brief points to make. The first concerns the importance of this subsidy. Some may feel that the inshore fishermen of England and Wales have done rather better than in fact they have. If we look at page 13 of the White Fish Authority's Report we see that with the subsidy in 1950–51, the Scottish vessels made an average of £406 a year whereas the English and Welsh vessels made an average of £307. In 1951–52, the Scottish vessels made £479 and the British vessels £319.
That suggests that the British inshore fishermen have not done as well as their Scottish counterparts. Yet they have the same costs of gear to meet. I hope that in future their special needs will be borne in mind. I will not mention the needs of the shell fishermen which I have mentioned many times before in the House.
My second point concerns the criticism of the Authority. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) said we all wished them well and I agree, but I think it is perhaps unfortunate that they have not publicised their activities sufficiently. Quite by chance the other day I heard that they are taking active steps to help with training grants which will be invaluable to the share fishermen of the inshore industry. I hope they will take more trouble to see that these things are made known to the fishermen.
Lastly, I support what has been said about their spending money on research. If only the White Fish Authority could spend money on some of the research which has been suggested, such as the development of the floating trawl and the development of new types of gear—which is far too expensive for the inshore fishermen—experimenting with nylon, for instance, for the long liners, they might be using their surplus funds to good effect. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear these points in mind.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Younger: I have nothing to say about the scheme beyond mentioning a point of procedure. As the Minister will remember, it was in response to a request from this side of the House that the Government agreed to make this procedure subject to affirmative Resolution and agreed that the first scheme should last for two years and then should have to be brought before the House again. If there is not much discussion on the scheme tonight, I hope that he will not assume that the affirmative Resolution procedure was unnecessary. When we have had a little experience of how the scheme works and when the Minister or his successor comes back to the House in two years' time I think he will find this procedure extremely useful and I think hon. Members will make full use of it.
I want to try to put the purpose of the Prayer straight to the Government, as an issue of principle about the Authority.


If one simply looks at the accounts of the Authority one cannot be surprised that they are suggesting a reduction of the levy—in other words, a reduction in their revenue—because they have a handsome surplus. What we are concerned to know, however, is why they have a handsome surplus when there seem to be so many things for which the money could be used. I noticed in March this year that there was pressure from the trade for the abolition of the levy because of the growing surplus, and when the Authority refused to accede to that request the inference was drawn in some quarters of the industry—I quote from the trade Press—
that they were refusing because they were confident of putting plans into operation which would bring worthwhile benefits to the industry.
Now we find they want to reduce, if not abolish, the levy. Are we to deduce from that reduction that the converse is true—namely, that they no longer have any confidence that they are going to put useful schemes before the industry and before the country? I am the more worried when I see what has happened to schemes which they have already proposed. Take the transport equalisation proposal mentioned in the second annual report. They say they still believe in the scheme. It was dropped not because they had lost confidence in it but because of resistance from the trade. When they decided that they could not implement it, although it was a good scheme, they say they sought an alternative way of relieving some of the inshore fishing ports.
In the report it is said that the annual sum required for this alternative policy, though comparatively small, could not be met from the funds of the authority. Now we find it deliberately reducing its funds. I do not know what is meant by a comparatively small sum. Its first big scheme was turned down through opposition from the trade. It then produces a more modest alternative, and that has to be turned down through lack of funds. We would like to know what is the attitude of the Government to that sort of difficulty. This summer most sections of the industry have been in considerable difficulties. In face of this we have seen some elements of the industry

trying to organise themselves. That is something new for this industry.
We had, first, the Scarborough conference, which combined most of the interests, except the workers. From that I see there are now emerging plans for a joint council for the industry, and the distant water vessels development scheme for co-operation between the producing sections of the two big ports of Grimsby and Hull. I might remind the House that the distant water vessels development scheme is, of course, a restrictive scheme. In the opinion of the White Fish Authority, while the scheme, in their view, is not prejudicial to the interests of the consumer, it is the sort of scheme which should not rest with one small group of trawler owners.
The decision to ban Iceland imports was equally a sectional matter and was equally arbitrary. I know quite well that nearly all the merchants were strongly opposed to it, but were intimidated into accepting it and have never dared to speak against it since its introduction. That is what is done by means of pressure within the industry. The White Fish Authority's schemes, on the other hand, are constantly coming to nothing because of objections: for instance, the freezing scheme, the box pool scheme and the transport equalisation scheme. The report also found too little co-operation in the trade for the costing investigation, and stated that the Authority must now make use of its compulsory powers.
It is time for the Government to say what they intend to do. Is it right, in this industry, to have no collective organisation, which has been, roughly speaking, the case in the past? Or are the Government content with occasional spasmodic efforts when one powerful group happens to dragoon the others so as to get some collective action? Or are they prepared to give the White Fish Authority not only power but, what is much more important, the political backing which is required if there is to be any organisation of this industry in the public interest—in the interest of the consumer as well as of the industry?
I share some of the criticisms of the White Fish Authority, but that report shows signs of some good work and some useful beginnings. There may be difficulties of personnel, but the important


question is whether the political backing is there to encourage the Authority, when it has a scheme, to go ahead with the certainty that the Minister and this House will back it to the full, despite the objections which will always be raised when any scheme is produced, however good it is.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: I am in an unenviable position in answering the debate on the Prayer—like Ishmael with every man's hand against him. Some hon. Members have shown a little sympathy for the White Fish Authority but all who have spoken have expressed a feeling of general disappointment that their expectations when the 1951 Act was placed on the Statute Book have not been realised.
I should like to deal with one or two points raised by hon. Members and also make one or two general comments. Although I was a Member of the House at the time I was not concerned intimately with the Bill passing through the House, but I have read again the HANSARDS of that time, in 1951, when everybody recognised, as, indeed, hon. Members have recognised tonight, that the Authority were given a tremendous job to do.
The problems of the fishing industry are problems which have baffled the minds of the industry and the Government for many years. Therefore, whoever were the personnel on this Authority they could not have expected to achieve really dramatic results in a couple of years, for it is only two years since they were appointed formally on 31st May, 1951. Considerable as were their difficulties in 1951 I am afraid that they have even intensified since then. Other features have appeared which have made their difficulties even greater.
It is reasonable to ask the House, in judging what the Authority have managed to do, to recognise, as some hon. Members have recognised tonight, the problems of the fishing industry. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) asked what was the fundamental problem of the industry. It is extremely hard to define. Quite obviously, a cure cannot be found for it until the problem itself has been found. Although the Authority admit that they have gone off to a slow and perhaps rather shaky start

I think that their Report shows useful beginnings, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) has said. The Authority are beginning to look, on the one hand, at the problems of the industry and, on the other hand, at some of the immediate needs with which they can deal without any doubt.
It is certain that until they have made a survey of both the catching and the distributive sides of the industry they cannot usefully propose any major cures or re-organisation. The Report states that they have now registered wholesalers which, in itself, is a valuable piece of work and gives some idea of the pattern of distribution. They have produced in the Report a sample of the trading results of a number of wholesalers. That gives for the first time a picture of how these people are trading.
It is true that they say that they have not had all the co-operation that they would like and that they may need more powers to complete the job. If they apply to my right hon. Friend for those powers we shall consider that application very carefully. I should like to reassure the right hon. Member for Grimsby that we are fully backing this Authority. Anything useful and constructive that they can do within their statutory powers will have our full co-operation and backing, which, indeed, they have had during the last two years. So if it proves necessary that they should have powers to require further information in this field, we shall carefully consider whether we should not give them.
In the rest of the picture that has been surveyed, the question of boxes was raised by more than one hon. Member. It is true that they have not made any great progress up to date, but they are specifically proposing to do just what the hon. Member says—they are proposing to take control so that it will be they who will take action against defaulters in order to relieve the individual trader.

Mr. Edward Evans: Will they hire or buy, or act as agents? It is important.

Mr. Nugent: I do not propose at this late hour to read the hon. Gentleman a large section of the Report, but if I may refer him to page 19, paragraph 70, he will see there the complete proposals. They intend to do exactly what he says, which is to take sufficient control of the operation of the boxes so that it will be


they who will take action against defaulters and not the individual trader.
Turning again to the progress they have been making during the year, I think it would be right to record that their work in the field of research, although again somewhat tentative, is beginning to be of value. Their work, mentioned on pages 24 and 25 of the Report in conjunction with the Torrey Research Station on quick freezing at sea, is something which, if successful, will undoubtedly make one of the greatest contributions to the industry.
In their approach to it, by the formation of technical committees, bringing together members of the trawling industry as well, they are making a practical approach to ensure that the scientist and the commercial man are each adequately represented. Although they are at this time reducing their levy, because they say they have enough money from a levy of ¼d. instead of ½d., they are nevertheless starting on exactly the work which I think every hon. and right hon. Member in the House wishes them to undertake.
I am sure that all hon. Members interested in the fishing industry will agree that to plunge into expensive and dramatic kinds of research, which may look attractive to the outsider, may be a complete waste of money. Surely the right thing is to approach this in a cautious manner and, when they are certain that they are on the right lines, they can branch out on a larger scale. They have at last got this work of possible quick freezing at sea in hand, and they hope in due course, when they have done the preparatory work at Torrey, to get a trawler fitted up with this equipment and out to sea to find out how it operates there.
In the judgment which the House must make of their application to reduce the levy from ½d. to ¼d., it would be wrong to say that they have failed completely because they are not spending the whole of the ½d. levy. That is the wrong standard by which to judge them. They have taken the view that they do not need £280,000 a year, that they can manage with £140,000 and, with a hard-pressed industry, what is the point of levying an additional ¼d. on it? They can put the levy up again by making an application in another year to raise it to ½d. or 1d. if necessary. But, first

of all, they must lay the foundations on which they will build bigger research and bigger service in the future.
In reply to a point raised by the hon. Member for Lowestoft, they have been engaging in a publicity campaign. They have mounted one costing approximately £80,000 a year, which is being very successful in putting over to the consuming and the distributive trades the value of consuming more fish. In other words, they are doing exactly what the hon. Member would wish them to do. Their total budget, including provision for this publicity and including provision for research they have in hand, amounts to about £120,000. That leaves £266,000 in the bank ready to be called on if they need more in an emergency. If and when their work increases we shall certainly be willing for them to come forward and ask for an increase in the levy.
I believe that if hon. Members will read the Report with a not too critical eye they will see, as the right hon. Member for Grimsby said, that there are a number of useful beginnings and that this Authority are doing jobs which the House hoped they would do. I do not propose to enumerate them in detail; they are in the Report, which gives a perfectly frank and honest statement of what they have done. I think it shows that they have made a useful, constructive contribution in a singularly difficult field.
I commend the reading of this Report to hon. Members because I feel it does justify the confidence we have— despite all the criticisms and disappointments there may be—that the Authority are serving a useful purpose and will continue to have an influence which will greatly assist the hard-pressed fishing industry to meet some of its major problems. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Lowestoft will not pursue the Prayer.

Mr. Edward Evans: We are very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his defence of the Authority and his explanation of their activities. I think we ought to say that we concur wholly in the attitude of the White Fish Authority in proposing to reduce their levy at the moment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Member must ask for the leave of the House if he wishes


to speak again, as he has already made a statement.

Mr. Evans: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Motion for the Prayer has not been moved.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1953, dated 26th June, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.

TRAFFIC REGULATIONS, CENTRAL LONDON

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Major Conant.]

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: I wish to bring the House back to land and to raise the subject of the operation of no-waiting and unilateral waiting regulations, particularly in the area of Central London. Before doing so, I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport for attending the debate as I understand that he has been feeling very unwell all day, has been running a temperature and has come here specially. I am very grateful to him for not asking me to postpone the discussion.
The no-waiting regulations which have been in operation in Central London for some time now are, in my opinion, a complete farce. I particularly refer to those in streets like Jermyn Street, Dover Street, Albemarle Street and Hay Hill. The first is a two-way street which is very narrow and at whatever hour of the day one drives through one finds cars parked on both sides of the road.
The same applies to the other streets except that two of them are one-way streets, which makes the situation not so bad, but the fourth, Hay Hill, is a very narrow two-way street which is a vital link in the one-way traffic system in the Berkeley Square and Piccadilly Circus area and if it gets clogged great congestion can ensue. At half-past five yesterday, when no-waiting regulations were in force, two large motor cars were parked there. They were offending the

regulations because they were not loading or unloading. One can find this happening at any hour of the day whether no-waiting regulations are in force or not.
On the other hand, the unilateral regulations which were brought into operation last January are an experiment based on about seven streets in the Central London area and about 20 streets in various areas outside London, stretching from places as far apart as Harrow and Purley. My experience of them is that they are working very well indeed.
The street of which I have most experience is Tothill Street, and, to a certain extent, I have been affected by the regulations. I was in the habit of parking my car in that street before the regulations came into force, and now I have to park it in New Palace Yard and go to my office on foot.
Nevertheless, these regulations are working very well indeed, and usually one finds one side of the road completely clear of cars. Occasionally, one finds a large car parked on the side where there is no parking. I suppose that there will always be motorists who cannot see a notice unless it is in neon lights or floodlit.
There is one vital difference between the no-waiting regulations and the unilateral parking regulations. The no-waiting regulations allow loading and unloading in certain conditions, and vehicles may park on either side of the road, even when the regulations are in force, to load or unload goods.
To my mind, that completely vitiates the regulations, because when it happens in a narrow street it only needs one stationary vehicle to be on one side of the road and another vehicle on the opposite side at the same time to narrow the roadway to about a third of its normal width. The unilateral regulations, on the other hand, do not allow loading or unloading on the side on which there is no waiting on a particular day, and vehicles may only wait for 20 minutes on the other side, except, of course, such vehicles as furniture vans and fire engines. If all the cars parked on both sides of a street were parked on one side—and that is the state of affairs that occurs during most of the day—the flow of traffic would be much easier.
My second point is that if the police really want to enforce the no-waiting regulations, with the exception of the exempted vehicles, then they should use the no-parking notices which, for example, are put up all round Lord's when there is a Test Match in progress, and at other sporting events. No motorist who is not a fool defies those parking notices.
Another point is that the no-waiting regulations and the unilateral regulations come into operation much earlier in the provinces than in London. In High Wycombe, for example, I noticed that they come into operation from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and that takes in the early rush hour which those in Central London do not. I wonder why the same thing cannot be applied to London. I know that traders would be inconvienced, but, presumably, the traders in the provinces are inconvenienced and do not object.
About three years ago, I put down a Question, in all innocence, to the Minister of Transport asking for a list of the towns in which those regulations began before 11.30 a.m. I thought there were only about half a dozen, or, at the most, a dozen of them. To my surprise I received about six foolscap sheets of paper on which were the names of I do not know how many towns typed in single spacing. It must have been one of the most unpopular Questions ever addressed to the Minister.
I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will tell me what are the prospects of the application for unilateral waiting being granted in Wembley. This application, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, was originally made 2½ years ago, in February, 1951. The experiment in progress at present is being tried in about 15 other boroughs adjacent to London, and I am wondering, although I have not given notice of this, whether I could be told when these applications were made; and whether they were made before Wembley made theirs.
It seems rather ridiculous that a borough has to wait 2½ years before being allowed to try a system, even as an experiment. On 11th December last year, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the proposed streets in Wembley were of little traffic importance and I agree that that may be so, but with one important

exception. St. John's Road has a substantial flow of north-south traffic, and it is particularly congested on a Saturday afternoon. Could my hon. Friend ask the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, which has made so many successful recommendations in the past, to investigate this matter again, and see whether this experiment can be started very soon?
I know that unilateral waiting regulations usually bring objections, and Westminster City Council's objections to regulations now in force in central London formed one of the causes for the delay in bringing those regulations into operation. But there are always objections to changes and to progress, in whatever form. It has been proved by experiments in the past in other parts of England and Wales that unilateral waiting, once adopted, is seldom abandoned. It is in force in about 250 towns in England and Wales, and is, I might mention, in widespread use abroad.
A few years ago I was in Monte Carlo, during the summer, and I found that unilateral waiting was in force in the main street, not from 11.30 to 6.30, but throughout the whole day and night. People could park cars on one side only for just as long as they wished; the only objection if one did so was that one could not go to bed before midnight, because one had to change from one side to the other when the next day came. There are also some very successful unilateral waiting regulations in Paris.
I have often been told that traffic conditions are very different in places abroad. I agree that London is different from other places in this sense, for the traffic is usually more dense, the streets narrower, and the problem, therefore, more urgent; and for that reason, I hope my hon. Friend will tell us that it can be dealt with urgently.
A real solution to London's traffic congestion, which is getting more serious each week, depends, I realise, not so much on the Ministry, as on the Treasury in giving permission for the carrying out of the recommendations of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee which were published in 1951. But these restrictions, the making of the no-waiting regulations effective, or replacing them with unilateral waiting regulations, will all have some effect, and


I do hope, therefore, that these will be brought into use, and extended where possible.

11.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): This debate flows from those initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell), on 27th February and 11th December last year. I am very grateful that these interesting points have been raised on the Adjournment again tonight. This short debate comes at an opportune moment, as we are about to review the working of the present experimental scheme of unilateral waiting in London, which came into force last January.
I can assure my hon. Friend that the points he has raised will be carefully considered by my right hon. Friend when he decides in what form and in what streets unilateral waiting is to continue, and whether the scheme is to be extended. In the meantime, I think it will be most helpful if I try to deal as shortly as I can, in the time available to me, with the main points which my hon. Friend has raised this evening.
His first point was that the present no-waiting regulations are a complete farce, while unilateral waiting is very successful. I cannot agree with this view. We could not get along in the main thoroughfares of London at present unless there were no-waiting regulations on them. Conditions in Piccadilly and Oxford Street, for example, if waiting were permitted, would be quite chaotic. The London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, on whose advice no-waiting was introduced have reviewed its working from time to time and, while my hon. Friend was one of their members, they put it on record that no-waiting was of great value in improving the flow of traffic, reduced impatience and irritation among drivers, made for safer driving, and helped to keep traffic moving at a reasonable speed. I fear that my hon. Friend has retrogressed since he adorned that body.
Moreover, accident records in no-waiting streets have much improved following the introduction of the restrictions. It would, therefore, be a retrograde step if we repealed no-waiting restrictions generally. On the other hand, it is certainly true that in a number of thoroughfares of secondary traffic

importance there is a great deal of unnecessary waiting, due to an alleged need for setting down and taking up passengers and loading and unloading goods. In some streets, where there is a genuine need for this kind of thing, we may have to review the situation and turn some of these streets into unilateral streets, as suggested by my hon. Friend. I promise that we will review this very carefully, in co-operation with the police, to see whether some adjustments might be made.
The second point raised by my hon. Friend was the exemption included in no-waiting regulations, which allows vehicles to wait for 20 minutes for loading and unloading, and its omission from the unilateral waiting regulations. I agree that it would be far better, from the traffic point of view, if all exemptions were removed, but I must point out that traffic does not move merely for the sake of moving. Vehicles have to stop for business purposes, and if the exemptions to no-waiting were withdrawn, we might well have to shorten the period of restriction, as much of the business in Central London involves the collection and delivery of goods.
Moreover, the present total prohibition on loading and unloading in unilateral streets is causing complaints. In all this a spirit of compromise is necessary. In the streets selected for no-waiting, the period of restriction must be right, and the exceptions to the rule the minimum. If we were to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestions about one-side parking we should hope to have the co-operation of all road users. I think he would agree that without that none of these experiments can be expected to operate successfully.
It would not be possible in London at present to enforce strictly a law which was not regarded as reasonable in the circumstances by the general body of traders and road users. Before I pass from this point, I would like to take this opportunity to ask some of the motoring public to show a little more sense of responsibility in this matter. We cannot expect, with the shortage of police manpower in London today, to have as much policing of restricted streets as we would like, and we must rely on the public to respect restrictions which were carefully considered before they were imposed.
I therefore appeal to the motoring public to bring to an end some of the abuse of unilateral waiting in London. If a street is to be restricted on one side, and there is no space free on the parking side I hope drivers will try to find suitable parking places elsewhere. If a driver waits on the restricted side he may not only restrict the flow of traffic in that street but cause an immense amount of trouble in nearby main thoroughfares. We really must ask for more co-operation in this matter.
The next point was the suggestion that the police should be encouraged to use the no parking notices used from time to time, on such occasions as the Test match at Lord's and other places where sporting events take place. Here I should explain that the police have powers under the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839 to make ad hoc arrangements for the control of traffic on special occasions. But the powers are not sufficient to allow them to impose more or less permanent restrictions on waiting of that kind. I can imagine my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) bestirring himself considerably if that suggestion were accepted in this connection.
A further point raised which might be dealt with here was the time during which the regulations in London operate. The hon. Gentleman asked why the regulations come into operation later in London than in provincial towns. The explanation is simple enough. Office hours in London start later, of course, than in provincial cities, as the journeys from the periphery and suburbs occupy considerably more time than they do for those who work, for instance, in the centre of the City of Bristol, a division of which I have the honour to be a representative. The press of traffic in the West End starts later than elsewhere, and it is both practical and sensible to allow traders to get their loading and unloading done before the main pressure of traffic.
This late start was agreed to by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee after careful consideration, again while the hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member of that valuable body. I am not certain, however, with the present traffic, whether we

shall be able to go on much longer without restrictions starting earlier, but it is our aim not to increase the already quite onerous regulations unless the case is overwhelming.
I am told they already place a great burden on delivery schedules of carriers who have to see that their vehicles arrive at unrestricted times, and my right hon. Friend has already had representations, particularly from the meat trade, that the loading and unloading cannot be properly done in unilateral streets because ships and refrigerating stores have to be cleared from the docks all round the clock. I therefore submit that, on the whole, the present compromise is a reasonable one which ought to be allowed to continue for the time being.
My hon. Friend probably feels that I have not been able to meet him very much on his points so far, but I can close with one observation which I know will cheer him. This is in connection with unilateral waiting in Wembley. It is true that for a long time past the Wembley Borough Council and, indeed, other councils on the outskirts of London, have been pressing for the introduction of unilateral waiting in further streets in their area. They do not want, however— and I am sure my hon. Friend is pleased with this—to have the total prohibition of loading and unloading in these streets. After discussion with the police, agreement has been reached to an extension of unilateral waiting in a number of streets off the High Road in Wembley and elsewhere, but without the restrictions which we have found it necessary to impose in Central London.
I hope that we shall be able very soon to obtain the recommendations of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee on final arrangements and that my last observations will demonstrate—not, I hope, for the first time—that we in the Ministry of Transport are always alive to local difficulties and problems and do our best to make such arrangements as will adequately meet them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.